Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 69

which case the lesser penalty

FREQUENTLY ASKED OBJECTIVE between the crime intended and the

QUESTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW crime committed shall be imposed
but in the maximum period (Art. 49,
(1) Distinguish motive from intent. (1996; RPC).
Praeter intentionem or where the
ANSWER: Motive is the reason consequence went beyond that
which impels one to commit an act intended or expected. This is a
for a definite result, while intent is mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par.
the purpose to use a particular means 3, RPC) when there is a notorious
to effect such result. Intent is an disparity between the act or means
element of the crime (except in employed by the offender and the
unintentional felonies), whereas resulting felony, i.e., the resulting
motive is not. felony could not be reasonably
anticipated or foreseen by the
offender from the act or means
(2) What do you understand by aberratio employed by him.
ictus, error in personae and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal
liability of the accused? (1989; 1993; (3) Distinguish mala in se from mala
1994; 1999) prohibita. (1988; 1997; 1998; 2001;
ANSWER: Aberratio ictus or
mistake in the blow occurs when the ANSWER: Mala in se is a wrong
offender delivered the blow at his from its very nature, as most of those
intended victim but missed, and punished in the RPC. Hence, in its
instead such blow landed on an commission, intent is an element and
unintended victim. The situation good faith is a defense. The test to
generally brings about complex crimes determine whether an offense is mala
where from a single act, two or more in se is not the law punishing it but
grave or less grave felonies resulted, the very nature of the act itself.
namely the attempt against the
intended victim and the consequences On the other hand, an act mala
on the unintended victim. As complex prohibita is a wrong because it is
crimes, the penalty for the more prohibited by law. Without the law
serious crime shall be the one punishing the act, it cannot be
imposed and in the maximum period. considered a wrong. Hence, the mere
It is only when the resulting felonies commission of that act is what
are only light that complex crimes do constitutes the offense punished and
not result and the penalties are to be criminal intent will be immaterial for
imposed distinctly for each resulting reason of public policy.

Error in personae or mistake in (4) What are heinous crimes? Name ten
identity occurs when the offender specific heinous crimes. (1994; 1995;
actually hit the person to whom the 1997)
blow was directed but turned out to
be different from and not the victim ANSWER: Heinous crimes are those
intended. The criminal liability of the grievous, odious, and hateful offenses
offender is not affected, unless the and which by reason of their inherent
mistake in identity resulted to a or manifest wickedness, viciousness,
crime different from what the atrocity, and perversity, are
offender intended to commit, in repugnant and outrageous to the
common standards and norms of 1. Persons convicted of offenses
decency and morality in a just, punishable with death penalty or
civilized and ordered society. They life imprisonment;
are punishable by reclusion perpetua 2. Those convicted of treason,
to death. (WHEREAS CLAUSE, R.A. conspiracy or proposal to commit
7659) treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition or
The ten specific heinous crimes 4. Those convicted of piracy;
are: 5. Those who are habitual
1. Treason delinquents;
2. Qualified Piracy 6. Those who shall have escaped
3. Qualified Bribery from confinement or evaded
4. Parricide sentence;
5. Murder 7. Those who violated the terms of
6. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal conditional pardon granted to
Detention them by the Chief Executive;
7. Robbery with Homicide 8. Those whose maximum term of
8. Destructive Arson imprisonment does not exceed one
9. Rape committed by two or more year;
persons, or with a deadly weapon 9. Those who, upon the approval of
or with homicide the law (December 5, 1933), had
10.Plunder been sentenced by final judgment;
10.Those sentenced to the penalty of
destierro or suspension.
(5) What are the instances when the death
penalty could not be imposed, although
it should otherwise be meted out? (7) What is an impossible crime? (1993;
(1997; 1998) 2003)

ANSWER: Under Art. 47 of the ANSWER: It is an act which would

RPC, the death penalty shall not be be an offense against persons or
imposed when: property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment,

1. The guilty person is below 18 years or on account of the employment of

of age at the time of the inadequate or ineffectual means.
commission of the crime, or (Art. 4, par. 2)
2. Is more than 70 years of age, or
3. When upon appeal of the case by But where the acts performed
the SC, the required majority vote which would have resulted in an
is not obtained for the imposition impossible crime also 1) constitute an
of the death penal offense under the RPC, or (2) would
(6) When is the benefit of the subject the accused to criminal
Indeterminate Sentence Law not liability although of a different

applicable? (1999; 2003) category, the penalty to be imposed

should be that for the latter and not
ANSWER: The Indeterminate that for an impossible crime.
Sentence Law does not apply to:

(8) Distinguish instigation from

entrapment. (1990; 1995; 2003)

ANSWER: Instigation takes place
when a peace officer induces a person
to commit a crime. Without the (11) Are reclusion perpetua and life
inducement, the crime would not be imprisonment the same? Can they be
committed. Hence, it is exempting by imposed interchangeably? (1991;
reason of public policy. Otherwise, 1994; 2001)
the peace officer would be a co-
principal. ANSWER: NO. Reclusion perpetua
is a penalty prescribed by the RPC,
On the other hand, entrapment with a fixed duration of imprisonment
signifies the ways and means devised from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years,
by a peace officer to entrap or and carries with it accessory
apprehend a person who has penalties.
committed a crime. With or without
the entrapment, the crime has been Life imprisonment, on the other
committed already. Hence, hand, is a penalty prescribed by
entrapment is not mitigating. special laws, with no fixed duration of
imprisonment and without any
accessory penalty.
(9) What is the purpose of the Probation
Law? (1986; 1989)
(12) What is a memorandum check? Is a
ANSWER: The purposes of the person who issues a memorandum
Probation Law are: check without sufficient funds guilty
a. To promote the correction and of violating B.P Blg. 22? (1994;1995)
rehabilitation of an offender by
providing him with individualized ANSWER: A memorandum check is
treatment; an ordinary check with the word
b. To provide an opportunity for the “Memorandum,” “Memo,” or “Mem”
reformation of a penitent offender written across the check, signifying
which might be less probable if he that the maker or drawer engages to
were to serve a prison sentence; pay its holder absolutely, thus
and partaking the nature of a promissory
c. To prevent the commission of note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill
offenses. of exchange within the purview of Sec.
185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

(10) What is the doctrine of implied A person who issued a memorandum

conspiracy? (1998; 2003) check without sufficient funds is guilty
of violating B.P Blg. 22 as said law
ANSWER: The doctrine of implied covers all checks whether it is an
conspiracy holds two or more persons evidence of indebtedness, or in
participating in the commission of a payment of a pre-existing obligation, or
crime collectively responsible and as deposit or guarantee.
liable as co-conspirators although
absent any agreement to that effect,
when they act in concert,
demonstrating unity of criminal intent
and a common purpose or objective.
The existence of a conspiracy shall be
inferred or deduced from their
criminal participation in pursuing the
crime and thus the act of one shall be
the act of all.
2004 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN B. NO, DAN’s defense will not
CRIMINAL LAW prosper because he is liable for Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention and the
QUESTION I circumstances that he released CHU before
A. RR represented to AA, BB, CC the lapse of three days and before the
and DD that she could send them to criminal proceedings were instituted, are
London to work there as sales ladies and pertinent only when the crime committed is
waitresses. She collected and received Slight Illegal Detention. These
from them various amounts of money for circumstances mitigate the liability of the
recruitment and placement fees totaling offender only when the crime committed is
P400,000. After their dates of departure Slight Illegal Detention. The crime
were postponed several times, the four committed by DAN was Kidnapping and
prospects got suspicious and went to POEA Serious Illegal Detention because he is a
(Philippine Overseas Employment private individual who detained and
Authority). There they found out that RR kidnapped CHU, who is a minor. (Arts. 267
was not authorized nor licensed to recruit and 268, Revised Penal Code)
workers for employment abroad. They
sought refund to no avail.
Is RR guilty of any grave offense? QUESTION II
Explain briefly. A. On his way home from office, ZZ
rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX
B. DAN, a private individual, boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching
kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a
day, DAN released CHU even before any grenade from his bag and announced a
criminal information was filed against him. hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his
At the trial of his case, DAN raised the watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for
defense that he did not incur any criminal his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But
liability since he released the child before as he fell, his head hit the pavement,
the lapse of the 3-day period and before causing his instant death.
criminal proceedings for kidnapping were Is XX liable for ZZ’s death? Explain
instituted. briefly.
Will DAN’s defense prosper? Reason
briefly. B. MNO, who is 30 years old, was
charged as a drug pusher under the
Suggested Answers: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of

A. Yes. RR is guilty of a grave 2002. During pre-trial, he offered to plead

offense, having engaged in illegal guilty to the lesser offense concerning use
recruitment constituting the offense of of dangerous drugs.
economic sabotage which is punishable with Should the Judge allow MNO’s plea
life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. to the lesser offense? Explain briefly.
Economic sabotage is an offense
defined in 38(b) of the Labor Code, as Suggested Answers:
amended by Presidential Decree No. 2018, A. YES, XX is liable for ZZ’s death
which is incurred when the illegal because criminal liability is incurred by a
recruitment is carried out in large scale or person committing a felony although the

by a syndicate. It is a large scale when there wrong done be different from that which he
are three or more aggrieved parties, intended. He is responsible for all the
individually or as group. And it is committed direct, natural and logical consequences of
by a syndicate when three or more persons his felonious act. XX’s act of announcing a
conspire or cooperate with one another in hold-up is an attempted robbery. ZZ’s
carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme death is the direct, natural and logical
or activity. (UP Law Center) consequence of XX’s felonious act because
ZZ jumped out of the vehicle by reason of
XX’s announcement of a hold-up. XX is

liable for ZZ’s death even if he did not or not exceeding one (1) month, does not
intend to cause the same. (Art. 4, Revised disqualify him from applying for probation;
Penal Code; People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037 the penalty for his present conviction does
[1969]). not disqualify him either from applying for
probation, since the imprisonment does not
B. NO, the judge should not allow exceed six (6) years. (P.D. NO. 968, Sec. 9)
MNO to plead to a lesser offense because
plea bargaining is expressly prohibited under
the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002. QUESTION IV
(R.A. 9165, Sec. 23) A. OW is a private person engaged
in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM
stab CV treacherously, then throw the
QUESTION III dead man’s body into a ravine. For 25
A. BB and CC, both armed with years, CV’s body was never seen nor
knives, attacked FT. The victim’s son, ST, found; and OW told no one what he had
upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but witnessed.
was prevented from shooting the attackers Yesterday, after consulting the
by AA, who grappled with him for parish priest, OW decided to tell the
possession of the gun. FT died from knife authorities what he witnessed and
wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with revealed that AM killed CV 25 years ago.
murder. Can AM be prosecuted for murder
In his defense, AA invoked the despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason
justifying circumstance of avoiding of briefly.
greater evil or injury, contending that by
preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he B. TRY was sentenced to death by
merely avoided a greater evil. final judgment. But subsequently he was
Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason granted pardon by the President. The
briefly. pardon was silent on the perpetual
disqualification of TRY to hold any public
B. PX was convicted and sentenced office.
to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine After his pardon, TRY ran for office as
of one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was Mayor of APP, his hometown. His opponent
convicted of another crime for which the sought to disqualify him. TRY contended
penalty imposed on him was thirty days he is not disqualified because he was
only. already pardoned by the President
Is PX entitled to probation? Explain unconditionally.
briefly. Is TRY’s contention correct? Reason
Suggested Answers:
A. NO, AA’s defense will not prosper Suggested Answers:
because AA was not avoiding any evil when A. YES, AM can be prosecuted for
he sought to disable ST. AA’s act of murder despite the lapse of 25 years,
preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, who because the crime has not yet prescribed
were the aggressors, was designed to insure and legally, its prescriptive period has not
the killing of FT without any risk to his even commenced to run.
assailants. Even if ST was about to shoot BB The period of prescription of a crime
and CC, his act being in defense of his father shall commence to run only from the day on
FT, is not an evil that could justifiably be which the crime has been discovered by the
avoided by disabling ST. (Revised Penal offended party, the authorities or their
Code, Art. 11, par. 4,) agents. OW, a private person who saw the
killing but never disclosed it, is not the
B. YES, PX may apply for probation. offended party nor has the crime been
His previous conviction for another crime discovered by the authorities or their
with a penalty of thirty days imprisonment agents. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 91)
accessory penalties provided in Article 40,
B. NO, TRY’s contention is incorrect RPC.
because the pardon granted by the President In circumstance no. 1 the guilty
does not expressly extinguish the accessory person is at least 18 years of age at the time
penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold of the commission of the crime, the death
public office. A pardon granted by the penalty can be imposed since the offender is
President shall not work the restoration of already of legal age when he committed the
the right to hold public office, or the right crime.
of suffrage, unless such right is expressly Circumstance no. 3 no longer
restored by the terms of the pardon. operates, considering the decision of the
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 36) Supreme Court in People vs. Efren Mateo
(G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing
an intermediate review by the Court of
QUESTION V Appeals for such cases where the penalty
A. The death penalty cannot be imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
inflicted under which of the following imprisonment before they are elevated to
circumstances: the Supreme Court. While the Fundamental
1. When the guilty person is Law requires a mandatory review by the
at least 18 years of age at the time of the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty
commission of the imposed is reclusion perpetua, life
crime. imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however,
2. When the guilty person is has it proscribed an intermediate review. A
more than 70 years of age. prior determination by the Court of Appeals
3. When, upon appeal to or on, particularly, the factual issues, would
automatic review by the Supreme Court, minimize the possibility of an error of
the required majority judgment. If the Court of Appeals should
for the imposition of death penalty is not affirm the penalty of death, reclusion
obtained. perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then
4. When the person is render judgment imposing the corresponding
convicted of a capital crime but before penalty as the circumstances so warrant,
execution becomes refrain from entering judgment and elevate
insane. the entire records of the case to the
5. When the accused is a Supreme Court for its final disposition.
woman while she is pregnant or within one In circumstances nos. 4 and 5, the
year after delivery. death penalty can be imposed if prescribed

Explain your answer or choice by the law violated although its execution
briefly. shall be suspended when the convict
becomes insane before it could be executed
B. CBP is legally married to OBM. and while he is insane. Likewise, the death
Without obtaining a marriage license, CBP penalty can be imposed upon a woman but
contracted a second marriage to RST. its execution shall be suspended during her
Is CBP liable for bigamy? Reason pregnancy and for one year after her
briefly. delivery. (UP Law Center)

Suggested Answers: B. Whether CBP could be held liable


A. Understanding the word for bigamy or not, depends on whether the

“inflicted” to mean the imposition of the second marriage is invalid or valid even
death penalty, not its execution, the without a marriage license. Although as a
circumstance in which the penalty cannot be general rule, marriages solemnized without
inflicted is no. 2: “when the guilty is more license are null and void ab initio, there are
than 70 years of age” (Article 47, Revised marriages exempted from license
Penal Code). Instead, the penalty shall be requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the
commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the Family Code, such as in Article 27 which is
marriage in articulo mortis. If the second

marriage was valid even without a marriage aunt corroborated on the witness stand.
license, then CBP would be liable for The information also alleged that the
bigamy. Otherwise, CBP is not liable for accused was the victim’s uncle, a fact
bigamy but for Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 proved by the prosecution.
for the Revised Penal Code, specifically On automatic review before the
designated as “Marriage contracted against Supreme Court, accused-appellant
provisions of laws.” (UP Law Center) contends that capital punishment could
not be imposed on him because of the
Alternative Answer: inadequacy of the charges and the
YES, CBP is liable for bigamy because insufficiency of the evidence to prove all
the legality of the second marriage is the elements of the heinous crime of rape
immaterial as far as the law on bigamy is beyond reasonable doubt.
concerned. Any person who shall contract a Is appellant’s contention correct?
second or subsequent marriage, before the Reason briefly.
former marriage has been legally dissolved,
or before the absent spouse has been Suggested Answers:
declared presumptively dead by means of a A. 1. The crime committed by CD is
judgment rendered in the proper arson under Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new
proceedings, is criminally liable for the Arson Law) which punishes any person who
crime of bigamy. A plain reading of the law, burns or sets fire to the property of another
therefore, would indicate that the provision (Section 1 of Pres. Decree No. 1613).
penalizes the mere act of contracting a 2. CD is criminally liable although
second or a subsequent marriage during the he is the stepfather of FEL whose property
subsistence of a valid marriage. he burnt, because such relationship is not
To hold otherwise would render the exempting from criminal liability in the
State’s penal laws on bigamy completely crime of arson but only in crimes of theft,
nugatory, and allow individuals to swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief
deliberately ensure that each marital (Article 332, Revised Penal Code). The
contract be flawed in some manner, and to provision (Art. 323) of the Code to the
thus escape the consequences of contracting effect that burning property of small value
multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs should be punished as malicious mischief has
of hapless women with the promise of long been repealed by Pres. Decree 1613;
futurity and commitment. (TENEBRO vs. hence there is no more legal basis to
COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 150758, consider burning property of small value as
February 18, 2004) malicious mischief. (UP Law Center)

B. YES, the appellant’s contentions

QUESTION VI are correct, because the victim’s minority
A. CD is the stepfather of FEL. One was not sufficiently proved by the
day, CD got very mad at FEL for failing in prosecution, and neither was the appellant’s
his college courses. In his fury, CD got the relationship with the victim properly alleged
leather suitcases of FEL and burned it in the information. The testimony of the
together with all its contents. mother regarding the age of TC, although
1. What crime was committed by corroborated by her aunt, is not sufficient
CD? proof of the age of the victim in order to
2. Is CD criminally liable? Explain justify the imposition of the death penalty.
briefly? Testimonial evidence on the age of the
victim may be presented only if the
B. GV was convicted of raping TC, certificate of live birth or similar authentic
his niece and he was sentenced to death. documents such as baptismal certificate and
It was alleged in the information that the school records which show the date of birth
victim was a minor below seven years old of the victim, is shown to have been lost or
and her mother testified that she was only destroyed or otherwise unavailable.
six years and ten months old, which her (PEOPLE vs. PRUNA, G.R. No. 138471,
October 10, 2002) crime are law, contracts, quasi-contracts
Furthermore, if the offender is merely and quasi-delicts. (PEOPLE vs. BAYOTAS,
a relative, not a parent, ascendant, step- G.R. NO. 152007, September 2, 1994)
parent, or guardian or common-law spouse
of the mother of the victim, the information B. OZ incurred criminal liability for
must allege that he is a relative by impossible crime. The crime committed by
consanguinity or affinity, as the case may OZ could have been murder, which is a
be, "within the third civil degree." Thus, it crime against persons, if it were not on
is not enough for the information to merely account of the employment of inadequate or
allege that appellant is the "uncle" of the ineffectual means. The substance poured by
victim even if the prosecution is able to OZ on YO’s drink was not arsenic as OZ
prove this matter during trial. It is still thought it would be, but was merely white
necessary to allege that such relationship sugar which was ineffectual to produce YO’s
was "within the third civil degree," so that in death. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 4)
the absence of said allegation, appellant can
only be held liable for simple rape and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion QUESTION VIII
perpetua. (PEOPLE vs. HEREVESE, G.R. No. A. PH killed OJ, his political rival in
145407, September 11, 2003) the election campaign for Mayor of their
town. The information against PH alleged
that he used an unlicensed firearm in the
QUESTION VII killing of the victim, and this was proved
A. AX was convicted of reckless beyond reasonable doubt by the
imprudence resulting in homicide. The prosecution. The trial court convicted PH
trial court sentenced him to a prison term of two crimes: murder and illegal
as well as to pay P150,000 as civil possession of firearms.
indemnity and damages. While his appeal Is the conviction correct? Reason
was pending, AX met a fatal accident. He briefy.
left a young widow, 2 children and a
million-peso estate. B. DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole
What is the effect, if any, of his the earrings of XZY, a stranger. MCB
death on his criminal as well as civil pawned the earnings with TBI Pawnshop as
liability? Explain briefly? a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial,
MCB raised the defense that being the
B. OX and YO were both courting mother of DCB,she cannot be held liable as

their co-employee, SUE. Because of their an accessory.

bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO Will MCB’s defense prosper? Reason
by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance briefly.
into YO’s coffee thinking it was arsenic. It
turned out that the substance was white Suggested Answers:
sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing A. NO, PH should be convicted only
happened to YO after he drank the coffee. of murder. The use of the unlicensed firearm
What criminal liability did OZ incur, shall be appreciated as an aggravating
if any? Explain briefly. circumstance only and not punishable
separately. If homicide or murder is

Suggested Answers: committed with the use of an unlicensed

A. The death of the accused pending firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm
the appeal of his conviction will extinguish shall be considered as an aggravating
his criminal liability as well as his civil circumstance. (R.A. NO. 8294, Sec. 1)
liability arising from the crime committed.
However civil liability arising from sources B. MCB’s defense will not prosper
other than the crime committed survives because she profited from the effects of the
and maybe pursued in a separate civil crime committed by her daughter DCB. An
action. Sources of civil liability other than accessory is not exempt from criminal

liability even if the principal is his spouse, [Sec. 3 (b), R.A. NO. 7610] MNA’s act of
ascendant, descendant, or legitimate, whipping her adopted child when he failed
natural or adopted brother, sister, or to come home on time, sending him to bed
relative by affinity with in the same degree, without supper for carelessness in washing
if such accessory profited from the effects dishes, and failure to immediately give
of the crime, or assisted the principal to medical treatment to her injured adopted
profit therefrom. The reason is that the child resulting in serious impairment of
accessory in such cases act not by the growth and development and in his
impulse of affection but by detestable permanent incapacity, constitutes
greed. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 20.) maltreatment and is punishable as Child
Abuse. [Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. NO. 7610]

QUESTION IX B. The crime committed by XA, YB

A. Mrs. MNA was charged of child and ZC is the composite crime of robbery
abuse. It appears from the evidence that with rape, a single, indivisible offense under
she failed to give immediately the Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
required medical attention to her adopted Although the conspiracy among the
child, BPO, when he was accidentally offenders was only to commit robbery and
bumped by her car, resulting in his head only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and
injuries and impaired vision that could ZC, were present and aware of the rape
lead to night blindness. The accused, being committed by their co-conspirator.
according to the social worker on the case, Having done nothing to stop XA from
used to whip him when he failed to come committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby
home on time from school. Also, to punish concurred in the commission of the rape by
him for carelessness in washing dishes, she their co-conspirator XA.
sometimes sent him to bed without The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ
supper. and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in
She moved to quash the charge on the special complex crime of robbery with
the ground that there is no evidence that rape which is a single, indivisible offense
she maltreated her adopted child where the rape accompanying the robbery is
habitually. She added that the accident just a component. (UP Law Center)
was caused by her driver’s negligence. She
did punish her ward for naughtiness or
carelessness, but only mildly. QUESTION X
Is her motion meritorious? Reason Distinguish clearly but briefly:
briefly. 1. Between rebellion and coup
d’etat based on their constitutive
B. Together XA, YB and ZC planned elements as criminal offenses.
to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by 2. Between compound and complex
breaking one of the windows in house. crimes as concepts in the Penal Code.
After taking her personal properties and as 3. Between justifying and
they were about to leave, XA decided on exempting circumstances in criminal law.
impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting 4. Between intent and motive in
her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of the commission of an offense.
her bedroom and did nothing to prevent 5. Between oral defamation and
XA from raping OD. criminal conversation.
What crime or crimes did XA, YB and
ZC commit, and what is the criminal Suggested Answers:
liability of each? Explain briefly. 1. Rebellion is committed by a public
uprising and taking arms against the
Suggested Answers: government while coup d’ etat is committed
A. NO, MNA is guilty of Child Abuse by means of swift attack accompanied by
under R.A. NO. 7610. Said statute penalizes violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, and
acts of child abuse whether habitual or not. stealth.
The purpose of rebellion is either to Criminal conversation is a term used
remove from the allegiance to the Philippine in making a polite reference to sexual
Government or its laws the territory of the intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape,
Philippines or any part thereof or any body seduction and adultery. It has no definite
of land, naval or other armed forces; or to concept as a crime. (UP Law Center)
deprive the Chief Executive or Congress
wholly or partially of any of their powers or
prerogatives. On the other hand, the BAR TYPE QUESTIONS BASED ON
purpose of a coup d’ etat is to seize or PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE
diminish state power from the duly
constituted authorities of the government or
any military camp or the installation Question No. 1
communication networks, public utilities and A armed with a revolver, suddenly
other facilities needed for the exercise of approached C who was seated at the
continued possession of powers. driver’s seat of an FX taxi and shot him on
Rebellion may be committed by any the abdomen. After which A moved back
group of persons while coup d ‘etat is while B shot the victim again this time
committed by a person or persons belonging twice. A and B then fled together from the
to the military or police, or holding any scene. A and B were convicted of murder
public office or employment. Rebellion is qualified by treachery for conspiring to kill
committed by more than 1 person as it B and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
involves a public uprising, while coup d ‘etat reclusion perpetua.
may be committed by only one person.
(a) Was there conspiracy between A
2. Compound crime is when a single and B?
act constitutes two or more grave or less (b) Was the there treachery in the
grave felonies while a complex crime is mode of attack?
when an offense is a necessary means for (c) Was the penalty properly
committing the other. imposed?
3. Justifying circumstance are those
when the act of a person is said to be in ANSWERS:
accordance with law, so that such person is (a) YES, A and B conspired to kill C.
deemed not to have transgressed the law Conspiracy may be implied if two or more
and is free from both criminal and civil persons aimed by their acts towards the
liability. On the other hand, exempting accomplishment of the same unlawful

circumstances are those grounds for object, each doing a part so that their
exemption from punishment because there combined acts, though apparently
is wanting in the agent of the crime any of independent of each other, were, in fact,
the conditions which makes the act connected and cooperative, indicating a
voluntary or negligent. closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment. It may be
4. Intent is the purpose to use a deduced from the acts of the malefactors
particular means to effect a definite result before, during and after the commission of
while motive is the moving power which the crime which are indicative of a joint
impels one to action for such result. purpose, concerted acts and concurrence of

sentiments. Once conspiracy is established,

5. Oral defamation, known as the act of one is deemed the act of all. In
slander, is a malicious imputation of any this case, the collective acts of A and B
act, omission or circumstance against a before, during and after the shooting,
person, done orally in public, tending to evince no other conclusion than that they
cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, conspired to kill C.
embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This (b) YES, although the attack was
is a crime against honor penalized in Art. frontal and in broad daylight, it was sudden
358 of the Revised Penal Code. and unexpected, giving C no opportunity to

repel the same or offer any defense on his poked his gun at Mody while C and J
person. simultaneously grabbed the hog-tied Mody.
(c) YES, under Article 248 of the A piece of cloth was placed in the mouth
Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty of Mody and he was herded into a van.
for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Mody was taken to a secluded area in the
There being no modifying circumstances next town and was shot to death.
attendant to the crime, the appellants Were the R, C, and J guilty of
should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of murder or kidnapping?
reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article
63 of the Revised Penal Code, which ANSWER:
provides that when the penalty consists of They are guilty of murder, not
two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty kidnapping. The act of the malefactors of
shall be imposed in the absence of any abducting Mody was merely incidental to
modifying circumstance. (PEOPLE vs. their primary purpose of killing him. Where
ALLAWAN, G.R. No. 149887. February 13, the detention and/or forcible taking away of
2004) the victim by the accused, even for an
appreciable period of time but for the
primary and ultimate purpose of killing
Question No. 2 them, holds the offenders liable for taking
Lex was found guilty by the RTC of their lives or such other offenses they
four counts of rape and imposed upon him committed in relation thereto, but the
the supreme penalty of triple death incidental deprivation of the victims' liberty
sentence and life imprisonment. does not constitute kidnapping or serious
Was the imposition of the penalty of illegal detention. What is primordial then is
life imprisonment proper? the specific intent of the malefactors as
disclosed in the information or criminal
complaint that is determinative of what
ANSWER: crime the accused is charged with — that of
NO, the Revised Penal Code does not murder or kidnapping. In murder, the
impose the penalty of life imprisonment in specific intent is to kill the victim. In
any of the crimes punishable therein. The kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive
proper penalty imposable is reclusion the victim of his/her liberty. In this case, it
perpetua, not life imprisonment. It bears is evident that the specific intent of R, C,
reiterating that reclusion perpetua and life and J in barging into the house of Mody was
imprisonment are not synonymous penalties. to kill him and that he was seized precisely
They are distinct in nature, in duration and to kill him with the attendant modifying
in accessory penalties.. Reclusion perpetua circumstances. (PEOPLE vs. DELIM, G.R. No.
entails imprisonment for 20 years and 1 day 142773, January 28, 2003)
to 40 years. It also carries with it accessory
penalties, namely: perpetual absolute
disqualification and civil interdiction for life Question No. 4
or for the duration of the sentence. It is not One evening, A, B, C and D, each
the same as "life imprisonment" which, for armed with handguns, barged into the
one thing, does not carry with it any house of George and his 10-year old son
accessory penalty, and for another, does not Christopher. The four intruders dragged
appear to have any definite extent or George and Christopher out of the house
duration. (PEOPLE vs. MEDINA, SR. G.R. Nos. into their get away car and drove off.
127756-58. June 18, 2003.) After about fifteen minutes, A and B
alighted from the car bringing Christopher
with them. In the meantime, the police
Question No. 3 received a radio report that George and
Armed with shotguns, R, C, and J his son Christopher had been kidnapped. A
barged into the house of Mody while the checkpoint was put up and it was there
latter was having dinner with his family. R that the police intercepted the car
carrying George, and was thus able to George was not detained for the purpose of
rescue the latter. After one week, George extorting ransom for his release. Neither
received a handwritten letter, demanding was he inflicted with any serious physical
P3M for Christopher’s release. No ransom injuries, nor did the malefactors simulate
money, however, was ever paid, for the public authority, or threatened to kill
police was able to rescue Christopher. George.
What crime or crimes were Although A, B, C, and D kidnapped
committed by A, B, C, and D? George and Christopher on the same
occasion and from the same situs, they are
ANSWER: guilty of two separate crimes: kidnapping
As to the abduction of Christopher, A, and serious illegal detention and slight
B, C, and D are liable for kidnapping and illegal detention. The malefactors were
serious illegal detention under Art. 267 animated by two sets of separate criminal
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the intents and criminal resolutions in
elements of which are as follows: kidnapping and illegally detaining the two
1. That the offender is a private victims. The criminal intent in kidnapping
individual; Christopher was separate from and
2. That he detains another or in any independent of the criminal intent and
manner deprives the latter of his resolution in kidnapping and detaining
liberty; George for less than three days. In the mind
3. That the act of detention must be and conscience of the malefactors, they had
illegal; and committed two separate felonies; hence,
4. That in the commission of the should be meted two separate penalties for
offense, any of the following the said crimes. (PEOPLE vs. PAGALASAN,
circumstances is present: G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991, June 18, 2003)
a. That the detention lasts for
more than 3 days;
b. That it is committed Question No. 5
simulating public authority; On September 28, 1996, Juan and
c. That any serious physical Victor boarded at around 3:00 a.m. a Five
injuries are inflicted upon Star Bus driven by Rodolfo Cacatian, bound
the person detained or for Pangasinan, in Camachile, Balintawak,
threats to kill him are Quezon City. Twenty (20) minutes or so
made; or later, when the bus reached the vicinity of
d. That the person detained is Nabuag, Plaridel, Bulacan, along the North

a minor, female, or a public Expressway, the accused with guns in hand

officer. suddenly stood up and announced a hold-
In the problem at hand, the detention up. Simultaneously with the
of Christopher lasted for more than 3 days. announcement of a hold-up, Juan fired his
Furthermore, Christopher is a minor. Neither gun upwards. Victor, meanwhile, took the
actual demand for nor actual payment of gun of a man seated at the back. Both then
ransom is necessary for the crime to be went on to take the money and valuables
committed. Although kidnapping for a of the passengers, including the bus
certain purpose is a qualifying circumstance, conductor's collections. Thereafter, the
the law does not require that the purpose be duo approached the man at the back

accomplished. telling him in the vernacular "Pasensiya ka

As to the abduction of George, they na pare, papatayin ka namin. Baril mo rin
are liable for slight illegal detention, which ang papatay sa iyo." They pointed their
is committed if the kidnapping is committed guns at him and fired several shots
in the absence of any of the circumstances oblivious of the plea for mercy of their
qualifying the crime to serious illegal victim afterwhich the latter collapsed on
detention. In the instant case, George was the floor. The two (2) then alighted from
kidnapped and detained illegally by the the bus and fled. During the investigation
malefactors only for less than a day. Also

conducted by the police, it was found out treachery is a generic aggravating
that the slain passenger was a policeman. circumstance to robbery with homicide
Juan and Victor were charged with although said crime is classified as a crime
and found guilty of Robbery with Homicide against property. (PEOPLE vs. ESCOTE, et
as penalized under Art. 294 of the RPC. al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003)
(a) Was treachery attendant in the
commission of the crime?
(b) Is treachery a generic Question No. 6
aggravating circumstance in robbery with On the night in question, Manuel
homicide? and Jose went to the house of Ronito and
Maria Fe to borrow money. Maria Fe
ANSWER: refused at first to lend the money but she
(a) YES, treachery was attendant in was prevailed upon by Ronito. Manuel,
the commission of the crime. There is Jose and Ronito then had a drinking spree
treachery when the following essential in the sala. After midnight, Maria Fe
elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of spread a mat for Manuel and Jose to sleep
the attack, the victim was not in a position on, while she and Ronito went to their
to defend himself; and (b) the accused room to sleep.
consciously and deliberately adopted the At around 2:00 a.m., Manuel, armed
particular means, methods or forms of with a .38 caliber gun, and Jose, armed
attack employed by him. The essence of with a knife, entered the bedroom of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected Ronito and Maria Fe who were sleeping.
attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting Manuel poked the said gun on Maria Fe.
victim, depriving the latter of any chance to She woke up and attempted to stand up
defend himself and thereby ensuring its but Manuel ordered her to lie down.
commission without risk to himself. Manuel ordered Jose to tie the hands of
Treachery may also be appreciated even if Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape
the victim was warned of the danger to his on her mouth. Jose complied. They then
life where he was defenseless and unable to divested Maria Fe of her jewelries and
flee at the time of the infliction of the coup later on her money.
de grace. In the case at bar, the victim was Manuel took a blanket and ordered
disarmed and then shot even as he pleaded Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose went to
for dear life. When the victim was shot, he the kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito
was defenseless. He was shot at close range, with the blanket and sat on top of him
thus insuring his death. then stabbed the latter several times.
(b) YES, treachery is applied to the Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different
constituent crime of "homicide" and not to parts of his body. Manuel hit Ronito with
the constituent crime of "robbery" of the the butt of his gun. Jose slit the throat of
special complex crime of robbery with Ronito and took the latter's wristwatch
homicide. Going by the letter of the law, and ring.
treachery is applicable only to crimes Manuel and Jose stayed in the house
against persons as enumerated in Title Eight, until 4:00 a.m. Before they left, Manuel
Chapters One and Two, Book II of the and Jose told Maria Fe that they were
Revised Penal Code. However, the Supreme acting on orders of certain people. They
Court of Spain has consistently applied also warned her not to report the incident
treachery to robbery with homicide, to the police authorities, otherwise they
classified as a crime against property. Citing will kill her. Maria Fe managed to untie
decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, herself and reported the incident to police
Cuello Calon, a noted commentator of the authorities.
Spanish Penal Code says that despite the May Manuel and Jose be convicted
strict and express reference of the penal of the special complex crime of robbery
code to treachery being applicable to with homicide or separate crimes of
persons, treachery also applies to other murder and robbery?
crimes such as robbery with homicide. Thus,
Furthermore, robbery with homicide
ANSWER: is committed even if the victim of the
Manuel and Jose are liable of the robbery is different from the victim of
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, as long as the homicide is
homicide. The elements of the crime are as committed by reason or on the occasion of
follows: (1) the taking of personal property the robbery. It is not even necessary that
is committed with violence or intimidation the victim of the robbery is the very person
against persons; (2) the property taken the malefactor intended to rob. For the
belongs to another; (3) the taking is done conviction of the special complex crime, the
with animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of robbery itself must be proved as conclusively
the robbery or on the occasion thereof, as any other element of the crime. In this
homicide is committed. case, the prosecution proved through the
A conviction for robbery with testimony of Maria Fe that the appellants
homicide requires certitude that the robbery threatened to kill her and her family and
is the main purpose and objective of the robbed her of her money and jewelry.
malefactor and the killing is merely It may be true that the original intent
incidental to the robbery. The animo of appellant Manuel was to borrow money
lucrandi must preceed the killing. If the from Ronito and Maria Fe but later on
original design does not comprehend conspired with Jose and robbed the couple
robbery, but robbery follows the homicide of their money and pieces of jewelry, and on
either as an afterthought or merely as an the occasion thereof, they killed Ronito.
incident of the homicide, then the Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of
malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes, robbery with homicide. In People v. Tidong,
that of homicide or murder and robbery, and this Court held that the appellant was guilty
not of the special complex crime of robbery of robbery with homicide even if his original
with homicide, a single and indivisible intention was to demand for separation pay
offense. It is the intent of the actor to rob from his employer and ended up killing his
which supplies the connection between the employer in the process. (PEOPLE vs.
homicide and the robbery necessary to DANIELA, et al., G.R. No. 139230, April 24,
constitute the complex crime of robbery 2003)
with homicide.
However, the law does not require
that the sole motive of the malefactor is Question No. 7
robbery and commits homicide by reason or Orlando was the owner of a parcel
on the occasion thereof. In People vs. of land located in Talisay, Cebu. On

Tidula, et al., this Court ruled that even if December 14, 1987 Orlando sold the
the malefactor intends to kill and rob above mentioned property for P60,000.00
another, it does not preclude his conviction to Abraham pursuant to a contract to sell
for the special complex crime of robbery entered into between them. It was
with homicide. A conviction for robbery with stipulated in the contract that Abraham
homicide is proper even if the homicide is will tender an initial down payment of
committed before, during or after the P20,000.00, while the balance of the total
commission of the robbery. The homicide amount of the property will be paid on a
may be committed by the actor at the spur monthly basis; that failure on the part of
of the moment or by mere accident. Even if the buyer to pay any monthly installments

two or more persons are killed and a woman within 60 days from its due date will
is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on entitle the seller to sell the property to
another, on the occasion or by reason of third persons; and that the deed of sale
robbery, there is only one special complex and the title to the property will be
crime of robbery with homicide. What is transferred to the vendee only after full
primordial is the result obtained without payment of the purchase price has been
reference or distinction as to the tendered.
circumstances, cause, modes or persons Abraham faithfully paid the monthly
intervening in the commission of the crime. installments. He also obtained Orlando’s

consent in having the property fenced. Question No. 8
However, on January 13, 1989, Orlando Joel, Agapito, and Isidro were
sold the same parcel of land to William for having a drinking spree near the Agapito’s
P200,000.00 as evidenced by the Deed of rented apartment. By the time they had
Absolute Sale executed by the former in consumed about two-and-a-half round
favor of the latter. Consequently, while bottles of gin, Joel started singing on top
Abraham was in the process of fencing the of his lungs the song "Si Aida, Si Lorna, o Si
lot, he was shocked to know that the same Fe." He was immediately cautioned by
had been sold by Orlando to William. This Agapito to lower his voice as the singing
event prompted William to file a case of might disturb the neighborhood. Peeved,
estafa under Art. 316 (2) of the RPC Joel confronted Agapito. An altercation
Orlando for disposing previously ensued. Joel warned Agapito "Babalikan
encumbered property. kita. Makita mo," (I'll get back at you.
Is Orlando liable for the crime of You'll see.) then left in a huff. The group
estafa as defined in Art. 316 (2) of the decided to end their drinking spree. By
Revised Penal Code? then, it was past 9:00 p.m. Isidro advised
Agapito to get inside their house.
ANSWER: However, Agapito was still upset about his
NO, the gravamen of the crime is the argument with Joel and lingered outside
disposition of legally encumbered real his house. Meanwhile, Isidro went inside
property by the offender under the express their rented apartment at the second floor
representation that there is no encumbrance of the house, while his wife prepared his
thereon. Hence, for one to be criminally dinner. At around 10:00 p.m. while he was
liable for estafa under the law, the accused taking his supper, Isidro heard somebody
must make an express representation in the shouting "Huwag, Joel Saklolo, may tama
deed of conveyance that the property sold ako!" Isidro then peeped outside and saw
or disposed of is free from any Joel pulling out from Agapito's chest a
encumbrance. bladed weapon. Shocked, Isidro and his
The prosecution is burdened to allege wife went down to help Agapito. By then,
in the information and prove the confluence Joel had already fled from the scene. The
of the following essential elements of the couple woke up some of their neighbors to
crime for the accused to be criminally liable help them carry Agapito and bring him to
for estafa under Art 316, paragraph 2 of the the hospital. Some neighbors arrived and
RPC: (1) that the thing disposed of be real brought Agapito to the hospital. On the
property; (2) that the offender knew that way, Agapito expired.
the real property was encumbered, whether Joel was charged with and convicted
the encumbrance is recorded or not; (3) that of murder qualified by treachery for the
there must be express representation by the fatal stabbing of Agapito, with Isidro as
offender that the real property is free from prosecution witness. On appeal, he
encumbrance; and (4) that the act of asserts the trial court’s appreciation of the
disposing of the real property be made to circumstance of treachery on the ground
the damage of another. However, Orlando that the prosecution witness Isidro did not
did not expressly represented in the sale of see the initial stage of the stabbing and
the subject property to William that the said the particulars of the attack on the victim,
property was free from any encumbrance. treachery cannot thus be appreciated.
Irrefragably, then, petitioner may not be May treachery be appreciated in the
charged with estafa under Art. 316, par. 2 of case at bar?
PHILIPPINES, GR. No. 146770. February 27, NO, because Isidro failed to see how
2003) the attack started. When he looked out
through the window, he saw Joel pulling out
his knife from the chest of the victim. Isidro
did not see the initial stage of the stabbing
and the particulars of the attack on the victim’s body at which the weapon was
victim. Treachery cannot thus be aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted.
appreciated. The mere fact that Agapito was Corollarily, conviction for a frustrated felony
unarmed when he was stabbed is not requires that the offender must have
sufficient to prove treachery. The settled performed all the acts of execution which
rule is that treachery cannot be presumed. would produce the felony as a result but
It must be proved by clear and convincing nevertheless did not produce it due to a
evidence, as the crime itself. It behooves cause independent of the offender’s will.
the prosecution to prove that the appellant Here, it is undisputed that appellant
deliberately and consciously adopted such fired his gun point-blank at Migeul, hitting
means, method or manner of attack as the latter at his breast. The nature of the
would deprive the victim of an opportunity weapon used and the location of the wounds
for self-defense or retaliation. Hence, the speak for themselves of Roberto’s intent to
appellant is guilty only of homicide and not finish off Miguel Beran who, by now, must
murder. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES have been dead if no timely medical
vs.JOEL PEREZ, G.R. No. 140772, December attendance was given him. (GOROSPE vs.
147974, January 29, 2004)

Question No. 9
At about 7 o’clock in the morning, Question No. 10
Miguel went to his farm to clear his land Norma was charged with violation of
preparatory to plowing and planting. While Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the
he was cutting weeds in the farm, Roberto Municipal Trial Court. After trial she was
and his group, namely: Hilario, Felix, convicted and sentenced to suffer
Pepito, Leonardo, Domingo and Berto imprisonment of one year. The petitioner
arrived at the farm. From a distance of remained at large and no appeal was filed
about 10 meters, Miguel noticed that from any of the said decisions. In the
Roberto and his group were all armed with meantime, the Supreme Court issued
either a long bolo or slingshot or buckshot Supreme Court Administrative Circular No.
(shotgun). As Roberto approached Miguel, 12-2000 enjoining all courts and judges
he drew his shotgun, aimed it at Miguel concerned to take notice of the ruling and
and fired hitting the latter on the chest. policy of the Court enunciated in Vaca v.
Hilario also fired his shotgun which was Court of Appeals and Lim v. People with
directed at Miguel. Immediately regard to the imposition of the penalty for

thereafter, Roberto and his group ran violations of B.P. Blg. 22.
away. Miguel went directly to the police After five years, the petitioner was
station to report the incident. finally arrested while she was applying for
Then Miguel was taken to the an NBI clearance. She was forthwith
hospital for treatment of his gunshot detained. She then filed an urgent motion
wounds on his chest and left side of the with the Municipal Trial Court asking the
body. court to apply SC Admin. Circular No. 12-
Roberto was then tried for 2000 and order her release from
frustrated homicide. He contends that he detention. She posits that SC Admin.
had no intent to kill Miguel, thus, he is Circular No. 12-2000 deleted the penalty

guilty only of slight or less serious physical of imprisonment for violation of B.P. Blg.
injuries. 22 and allows only the imposition of a fine.
Is Roberto correct? Is Norma’s contention correct?

NO, Roberto acted with intent to kill NO, SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001,
in firing the gun at Miguel. Usually, the SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays
intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon down a rule of preference in the application
used by the offender and the parts of the of the penalties for violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

It does not amend B.P. Blg. 22, nor defeat envelope handed to him contained the
the legislative intent behind the law. The marked money nor was there meeting of
clear tenor and intention of Administrative the minds between him and the poseur-
Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove buyer to transfer ownership in exchange
imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but for the price. He insists that the
to lay down a rule of preference in the prosecution was not able to prove the that
application of the penalties provided for in a sale of 200 grams of shabu took place
B.P. Blg. 22. between him and the poseur-buyer for
The pursuit of this purpose clearly Republic Act No. 9165 defines the sale of
does not foreclose the possibility of illicit drugs as "the act of giving a
imprisonment for violators of B.P. Blg. 22. dangerous drug, whether for money or any
Neither does it defeat the legislative intent material consideration."
behind the law. Thus, Administrative May Adam be convicted of the
Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of consummated crime of selling shabu when
preference in the application of the penal he was arrested even before he could
provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such that where hand over the plastic tea bag containing
the circumstances of both the offense and shabu?
the offender clearly indicate good faith or a
clear mistake of fact without taint of ANSWER:
negligence, the imposition of a fine alone NO, because Adam merely showed the
should be considered as the more bag containing the shabu and held on to it
appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the before it was confiscated. There is no
determination of whether the circumstances evidence that the poseur-buyer talked about
warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests and agreed with Adam on the purchase price
solely upon the Judge. Should the Judge of the shabu. There is no evidence that
decide that imprisonment is the more Adam handed over the shabu to the poseur
appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular buyer. The elements necessary for the
No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are the
hindrance. (DE JOYA vs. THE JAIL WARDEN identity of the buyer and the seller, the
OF BATANGAS CITY AND HON. RUBEN A. object, and consideration; and the delivery
GALVEZ, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
10, 2003.) Neither was there evidence to prove that
Adam was aware that the envelope
contained money.
Question No. 11 However, Adam is guilty of the crime
Adam, a dealer in shabu was of attempted sale of shabu. Adam intended
contacted by a poseur buyer for the to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts
purchase of shabu. They met at the the commission of the intended crime by
parking lot of a shopping mall. When Adam showing the substance to the poseur-buyer.
showed the poseur-buyer a transparent (PEOPLE vs. ADAM, G.R. No. 143842,
plastic tea bag which contained white October 13, 2003)
crystalline substances, the said poseur-
buyer in turn handed over an envelope
containing the marked P1,000.00 bills and Question No. 12
the boodle money to Adam. The poseur At about 9:00 a.m., Marilyn and
buyer then immediately identified himself Ailyn were asked by their parents to buy
as a police officer and arrested Adam. tinapa (dried fish) from a store about half
When tried for violation of the a kilometer away from their residence.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Adam They used a foot path to get to the store.
contends that he cannot be convicted of After buying the dried fish, they walked
the consummated crime of selling shabu back home. Momentarily, they saw the
for he was arrested before he could hand fifteen-year-old Dario emerge from a
over the plastic tea bag to the poseur- catmon tree. He struck Ailyn twice with a
buyer and that he was not aware that the piece of wood on her back and boxed her
on the left side of her face. She felt months of arresto mayor. The penalty
excruciating pain on her back and face, imposed by the trial court is erroneous. The
and all over her body. She fell penalty of consummated murder under
unconscious. Dario then struck Marilyn Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
twice on the back with the piece of wood. amended, is reclusion perpetua to death.
He then carried Ailyn to a grassy area and The imposable penalty should be reduced by
left her there. When Ailyn regained her two degrees under Article 68 of the Revised
bearings, she looked for Marilyn but Dario Penal Code because the appellant is a
and her sister were nowhere to be found. minor. As reduced, the penalty is reclusion
Upon investigation made by the temporal. Reclusion temporal should be
policemen, Marilyn's dead body was found reduced by two degrees lower, conformably
in a grassy area near bushes and trees to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code
along a river. She was lying face down; her which is prision correccional, because the
legs spread apart and was completely murder was committed in the attempted
naked. There was blood on her nose, her stage. This penalty should be reduced by
mouth, and her vagina. Her hair was one degree, which is arresto mayor, to
disheveled. The policemen arrested Dario determine the minimum of the
and had him detained in jail. After trial, indeterminate penalty. Accordingly, Dario
Dario was convicted of rape with homicide should be sentenced to a straight penalty of
and attempted muder and sentenced to four (4) months. It goes without saying that
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of if the trial court decides to impose on the
reclusion perpetua and imprisonment of accused a penalty of imprisonment of one
TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR year or less, it should impose a straight
(4) MONTHS of arresto mayor in its penalty and not an indeterminate penalty.
medium period, respectively. (PEOPLE vs. DARILAY, G.R. Nos. 139751-52,
Were the penalties properly January 26, 2004)

ANSWER: Question No. 13

NO. Dario was over 9 years but under Alfredo after having a drinking spree
15 years old when he committed the crime with other crew members went back to
and clearly acted with discernment when he F/B Ever IV, were he was working as a
committed the same. Article 6 of the cook. Xander, the captain of the vessel,
Revised Penal Code provides that the ordered food from Alfredo. Alfredo only
imposable penalty should be reduced by two gave rice to Xander, and told the latter

degrees. Under the RPC, rape with that he was not able to cook any viand.
homicide is punishable by death. Reducing Xander was incensed and told Alferdo that
the penalty by two degrees, the imposable he was a useless cook and it would be
penalty is reclusion temporal, from which better for him to resign from his
the maximum of the indeterminate penalty employment. Alfredo ignored Xander's
should be taken. To determine the minimum diatribes and went to the kitchen to tidy
of the penalty, it should be reduced by one things up. Meanwhile, Xander went to the
degree, which is prision mayor. Applying the kitchen and took the knife from the tray
indeterminate sentence law and taking into near the door. With the knife in his hand,
account how the ghastly crime was Xander went near Alfredo, who moved

committed, Dario should be sentenced to backward towards the front part of the
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 6 boat; but Xander pursued the him. When
years and one day of prision mayor in its he was cornered, Alfredo was forced to
medium period, as minimum, to 17 years grapple with Xander for the possession of
and 4 months of reclusion temporal in its the knife. With his left hand, Alfredo held
medium period, as maximum. Xander’s right forearm, and with his left
For attempted murder, the trial court hand, twisted Xander’s right hand towards
sentenced Dario to an indeterminate the chest. Xander placed his left hand on
penalty, from 2 months and one day to 4 Alfredo's shoulder. Alfredo was able to

wrest possession of the knife, and stabbed driven by Manny. When the taxi stopped
Xander on the chest. Xander placed his under the bridge at Moonwalk subdivision,
right hand on Alfredo's other shoulder, as Totoy told Manny, “Tol, pera-pera lang
he was stabbed on the chest, on the ito, dahil kailangan lang.” However,
abdomen and on the back. Xander fell, his Manny resisted and tried to get out of the
head hitting the edge of the deck. Alfredo taxi cab. Totoy pulled him back in and
could no longer remember the number of stabbed him with a bladed weapon on the
times he stabbed Xander. chest. Randy, Rot-Rot, and Jon-Jon took
Charged with and convicted of turns in stabbing Manny with bladed
murder, Alfredo argues that the killing of weapons. Manny managed to get out of the
Xander was made in self-defense. taxicab, and flee from the scene. He was
Did the appellant act in self- later on taken to a hospital where he
defense? expired.
Are Totoy and his confederates
ANSWER: guilty of the consummated crime of
NO, the inceptual aggression of robbery with homicide?
Xander had already ceased after Alfredo had
wrested possession of the knife. Alfredo ANSWER:
managed to wrest possession of the knife NO, there was no showing that Totoy
from the victim. While Alfredo was grappling and his cohorts managed to take any money
for the possession of the knife, Xander from the victim. For Totoy and his cohorts to
placed his left hand on Alfredo’s right be guilty of consummated robbery, there
shoulder. Even after Alfredo had wrested must be incontrovertible proof that property
possession of the knife, he stabbed Xander was taken from the victim. The malefactors
while the latter placed his right hand on are guilty of attempted robbery with
Alfredo’s other shoulder. Nevertheless, homicide only, because they commenced the
Alfredo stabbed the hapless Xander six more commission of robbery directly by overt acts
times. Two of the stab wounds were at the but was not able to perform all the acts of
back of Xander. execution which would produce robbery by
Furthermore, the number, locations reason of some causes or accident other
and depth of the wounds sustained by than their own spontaneous desistance.
Xander belie Alfredo's pretension that he In this case, Totoy demanded from
killed the victim in self-defense; the same the victim, "Tol, pera-pera lang ito, dahil
are proof that Alfredo intended to kill the kailangan lang." The victim refused to part
victim and not merely to defend himself. with his earnings and resisted. He even tried
The victim sustained no less than six (6) stab to get out of the taxicab but Totoy pulled
wounds. It certainly defies reason why him back and stabbed him. Randy, Rot-Rot
Alfredo had to inflict such injuries on the and Jon-Jon followed suit and stabbed the
victim if he was only defending himself. victim with their bladed weapons. The
Self-defense must be distinguished victim was able to flee from the vehicle
from retaliation; in that in retaliation, the without anything being taken from him.
inceptual unlawful aggression had already Totoy and his confederates commenced by
ceased when the accused attacked him. In overt acts the execution of the robbery, but
self-defense, the unlawful aggression was failed to perform all the acts of execution
still existing when the aggressor was injured by reason of the victim's resistance. (PEOPLE
or disabled by the person making the vs. BOCALAN, G.R. No. 141527, September
defense. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. 4, 2003)
GALLEGO, G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003)

Question No. 15
Question No. 14 At around 12:00 noon, Cesar saw his
Late in the evening on October 10, cousin-in-law, Lito and Papang dragging his
1997, Totoy, Randy, Rot-Rot, and Jon-Jon, seventy-two-year-old auntie, Natividad, in
boarded a NED MAJ Taxicab in Alabang, the direction of a forested area where
there were also mango and coconut trees. the homicide, the latter crime may be
Cesar shouted, "Hoy, bakit ninyo committed in a place other than the situs of
kinakaladkad ang aking tiya?" Papang and the robbery. (PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ, G.R.
Lito approached and told him not to No. 139697, June 15, 2004)
interfere. Then Papang pointed a knife at
Cesar and warned him not to reveal what
he saw to anyone; otherwise, they would Question No. 16
kill him and his family, including his From behind Dominador, Artemio
children. Later Cesar saw how Lito and pointed his shotgun at Dominador and shot
Papang forcibly took the possessions of the latter once on the back. Dominador
Natividad and also saw how they strangled fell to the ground face down. Then came
Natividad using a white rope. Initially, Arturo and Zosimo, who were armed with
Cesar kept what he saw to himself because a small bolos. Arturo turned Dominador's
of fear of retaliation from the accused. body face up, and stabbed him more than
Later on however, he revealed what he once with the bolo. Zosimo followed suit
saw during the commission of the crime. and stabbed Dominador once with his bolo.
As a result, a criminal information for The three then fled from the scene,
robbery with homicide was filed against towards the direction of Baliri river.
Lito and Papang. The three were then tried and
Are Lito and Papang guilty of convicted of murder for the killing of
robbery with homicide? Dominador. The trial court concluded
there was a conspiracy between Artemio,
Arturo, and Zosimo. On appeal, the
ANSWER: appellants contend that the trial court
YES, the accused are guilty of robbery erroneously ruled on the existence of
with homicide. In robbery, there must be an conspiracy because no agreement among
unlawful taking or apoderamiento which is the appellants to kill the victim was
defined as the taking of items without the proved.
consent of the owner, or by means of May conspiracy exist despite
violence against or intimidation of persons, absence of an express agreement to kill
or by using force upon things. Taking is the victim?
considered complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing, even ANSWER:
if he has no opportunity to dispose of the YES. Direct evidence is not required
same. There is, likewise, no need to prove to prove conspiracy. It may be proved by

the exact amount of money taken, as long as circumstantial evidence. It is not even
there is proof of the unlawful taking. Intent required that they have an agreement for an
to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of appreciable period to commence it. What is
the crime of robbery, is an internal act, important is that all participants performed
hence, presumed from the unlawful taking specific acts with such cooperation and
of things. coordination bringing about the death of the
In robbery with homicide, the original victim. When conspiracy is present, the act
criminal design of the malefactor is to of one is the act of all. In this case,
commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated Artemio, Arturo, and Zosimo acted in
on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. concert to achieve a common purpose, i.e.,

The intent to commit robbery must precede to kill Dominador. Artemio shot Dominador
the taking of human life. The homicide may at close range. Artemio and Zosimo
take place before, during or after the followed suit and stabbed Dominador with
robbery. There is no such felony of robbery their bolos. The three fled from the scene
with homicide through reckless imprudence together, carrying their weapons with them.
or simple negligence. The constitutive Indubitably, the three acted in concert;
elements of the crime, namely, robbery and hence, all are guilty for the killing of
homicide, must be consummated. As long as Dominador. (PEOPLE vs. ELLORABA, et al.,
there is a nexus between the robbery and G.R. No. 123917. December 10, 2003)

determined by taking into consideration all
the facts and circumstances afforded by the
QUESTION NO. 17 records in each case, the very appearance,
On May 6, 1990, while Leah was the very attitude, the very comportment
sleeping, she saw Joel and Bernardo, 13 and behavior of said minor, not only before
and 12 years old respectively, holding her and during the commission of the act, but
hands and feet as she was being also after and even during the trial.
undressed. Leah struggled but was easily (PEOPLE vs. CORTEZANO, G.R. No. 123140.
overpowered by the two. She threatened September 23, 2003)
to shout, but she was told that nobody
would hear her. Joel wetted Leah’s vagina
with his saliva and proceeded to have QUESTION NO. 18
carnal knowledge with her. Bernardo Between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00
stood by the door of the room as a lookout midnight, Bobby was sitting infront of the
while Joel was having his way with Leah. house of a certain Aling Pet. Bobby
After their dastardly deed, Joel and reeked of liquor and appeared to be
Bernardo then called Lou and Lionel, Lea’s drunk. Greg arrived together with Jaime
sisters, into the room, letting them see and began talking about the basketball
their sister naked. Joel and Bernardo game that they had just seen. Bobby, who
threatened to kill her and the members of was seated beside Jaime, did not take part
the family if she told anyone about what in the conversation. Suddenly, Bobby
happened to her. Joel and Bernardo left frisked Jaime’s waist and uttered that he
the room together. “wanted to kill.” Jaime and Greg became
In a prosecution for rape, should frightened and immediately went to their
Joel and Bernardo be exempted from house, which was just adjacent to Aling
criminal liability on the ground of Pet’s house. While Greg was about to
minority? open the door to his house, Bobby,
carrying two knives, emerged and
ANSWER: immediately and without warning, stabbed
NO, the facts show beyond cavil that Gregorio at the right side of the belly with
Joel and Bernardo acted with discernment one of the knives.
when they raped the victim, thus: (a) they Was the aggravating circumstance of
wetted the victim's vagina before they raped evident premeditation present in this
her; (b) one of them acted as a lookout case?
while the other was raping the victim; (c)
they threatened to kill the victim if she ANSWER:
divulged to her parents what they did to NO. For evident premeditation to be
her; (d) they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to appreciated as an aggravating circumstance,
look at their sister naked after they had it is indispensable to show how and when
raped her. A minor who is over nine years the plan to kill was hatched or how much
old and under fifteen years old at the time time had elapsed before it was carried out.
of the commission of the crimes is exempt The facts does not show when Bobby
from criminal liability only when the said decided to commit the crime and that a
minor acted without discernment. It is the sufficient amount of time elapsed for him to
burden of the prosecution to prove that a reflect upon his resolution to kill Gregorio.
minor acted with discernment when he Where there is no evidence as to how and
committed the crime charged. The when the plan to kill was decided and what
discernment that constitutes an exception to time had elapsed before it was carried out,
the exemption from criminal liability of a evident premeditation cannot be considered
minor under fifteen years of age but over as an aggravating circumstance.
nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, For evident premeditation to be
is his mental capacity to understand the appreciated, the following requisites must
difference between right and wrong, and concur: (1) the time when the offender
such capacity may be known and should be determined to commit the crime; (2) an act
manifestly indicating that the culprit has ensued between the offender and the
clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient victim. However, the facts reveal that after
lapse of time between the determination the altercation, Oscar left and Jimmy was
and execution to allow him to reflect upon not aware that Oscar had come back armed
the consequences of his act. The essence of with a hand gun.
evident premeditation is that the execution That Jimmy was shot facing Oscar
of the criminal act was preceded by cool does not negate treachery. The settled rule
thought and reflection upon the resolution is that treachery can exist even if the attack
to carry out the criminal intent during a is frontal, as long as the attack is sudden
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm and unexpected, giving the victim no
judgment. It must be based on external acts opportunity to repel it or to defend himself.
which must be notorious, manifest and What is decisive is that the execution of the
evident – not merely suspecting – indicating attack, without the slightest provocation
deliberate planning. Evident premeditation, from an unarmed victim, made it impossible
like other circumstances that would qualify for the latter to defend himself or to
a killing as murder, must be established by retaliate. (PEOPLE vs. PEREZ, G.R. No.
clear and positive evidence showing the 134485. October 23, 2003)
planning and preparation stages prior to the
killing. Without such evidence, mere
presumptions and inferences, no matter how QUESTION NO. 20
logical and probable, will not suffice. On June 24, 2005, Ondo and his
(PEOPLE vs. BORBON, G.R. No. 143085. friends went to the Clear Water Resort for
March 10, 2004) a swimming party. At about 5:00 p.m.,
Ondo and his friends headed back home.
Two men, one of whom was Edgar, were
QUESTION NO. 19 having some drinks. When they saw Ondo,
Oscar was cleaning his car infront of Edgar and his friend offered him a drink of
Jimmy’s house when the latter arrived and Tanduay. Ondo, declined, saying "Bay, I
confronted Oscar about the noise coming am not drinking now." Thereafter, Ondo
from Oscar’s car stereo. Oscar ignored left. Edgar was peeved. He rose from his
Jimmy and proceeded to clean his car. seat and followed Ondo. Edgar then took
Insulted, Jimmy raised his voice and hold of Ondo's right shoulder, took out a
shouted invectives at Oscar. This time stainless knife and stabbed the latter on
Oscar faced Jimmy and retorted with the breast. Edgar left the scene. Mortally
invectives of his own. Then Oscar boarded wounded, Ondo ran towards the vehicle

his car and sped away. After an hour, and fell inside it. Ondo's companions
Oscar came back and parked his car a few brought him to the Hospital, where he
meters away from Jimmy’s house. He was pronounced dead on arrival.
took a hand gun and stealthily approached Was there treachery in the fatal
Jimmy from behind as the latter was stabbing Ondo?
sweeping the sidewalk. Oscar then called
Jimmy’s name, and when the latter turned ANSWER:
around he was shot by Jimmy in the NO, mere suddenness of the attack on
stomach. Jimmy died as a consequence. the unarmed and unsuspecting victim does
Can treachery be considered to not justify the finding of treachery. As a

exist in this case? general rule, a sudden attack by the

assailant, whether frontally or from behind,
ANSWER: is treachery if such mode of attack was
YES, Jimmy had no opportunity to deliberately adopted by him with the
anticipate the imminence of the Oscar’s purpose of depriving the victim of a chance
attack, nor was Jimmy in a position to to either fight or retreat. The rule does not
defend himself or repel the aggression apply if the attack was not preconceived but
because he was unarmed. As a rule, there merely triggered by infuriation of Edgar on
can be no treachery when an altercation an act made by Ondo. In the present case,

it is apparent that the attack was not Marita was charged with and
preconceived. It was triggered by Edgar’s convicted of the crime of theft for stealing
anger because of the Ondo’s refusal to have jewelries. She was also ordered to pay the
a drink with the former and his companion. private offended party the sums of
Treachery cannot be appreciated if it P1,500,000 for the value of the stolen
has not been proved beyond reasonable jewelries and P100,000 for moral
doubt that the assailant did not make any damages. During the pendency of her
preparation to kill the victim in such a appeal to the Supreme Court she died. The
manner as to insure the killing or to make it private offended party moves that she be
impossible or difficult for the victim to paid the sums awarded representing the
defend himself. The prosecution must prove Marita’s civil liability.
that the killing was premeditated or that the May amounts representing civil
assailant chose a method of attack directly liability ex-delicto be awarded despite the
and specially to facilitate and insure the death of the accused pending appeal?
killing without risk to himself. The mode of
attack must be planned by the offender and ANSWER:
must not spring from the unexpected turn of NO, the civil action instituted with
events. (PEOPLE vs. DUMADAG, G.R. No. the criminal action for recovery of civil
147196. June 4, 2004) liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
upon the extinction of the criminal action
due to the death of the accused. The
QUESTION NO. 21 pecuniary liabilities adjudged against Marita
Jojo was convicted of the crime of are undeniably ex delicto. She was ordered
murder, and was sentenced to suffer the to pay actual damages, which is the value of
penalty of death by lethal injection, for the pieces of jewelry allegedly taken from
causing the death of Ricardo on February the private complainant, and moral damages
23, 1997, with the use of an unlicensed for the fear and trauma caused to the
firearm. The trial court sentenced Jojo to complainant by reason of the commission of
suffer the penalty of death, appreciating the crime. These civil liabilities arose from
the use of an unlicensed firearm as a the crime of Theft and are based solely on
special aggravating circumstance pursuant said delict. (DE GUZMAN vs. PEOPLE, G.R.
to R.A.8294 which took effect after the No. 154579. October 8, 2003)
killing on July 6, 1997.
Was the trial court correct in
imposing the death penalty? QUESTION NO. 23
Does the absence of spermatozoa in
ANSWER: the victim’s genitalia disprove rape?
NO. Under Article 248 of the RPC, as
amended by RA No. 7659, the imposable ANSWER:
penalty for murder is Reclusion Perpetua to NO, the negative findings of
Death. Since RA No. 8294 took effect after spermatozoa does not prove that rape was
the crime charged was committed, it should not committed. The absence of
be applied prospectively and not spermatozoa does not disprove rape. It has
retroactively. For if the new law were to be been long settled that absence of
applied retroactively as the trial court did, spermatozoa does not necessarily mean that
the same would aggravate the criminal rape was not committed; the slightest
liability of Jojo and the imposable penalty penetration of the female organ is enough.
for the crime charged. (PEOPLE vs. AQUINDE In any case, a negative sperm-detection test
ET. AL., G.R. No. 133733. August 29, 2003) is immaterial to the crime of rape, it being
firmly settled that the important
consideration in rape is penetration and not
emission. (PEOPLE vs. MALONES, G.R. Nos.
QUESTION NO. 22 124388-90. March 11, 2004)
YES. The essence of the crime of
QUESTION NO. 24 kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the
Mida, after being berated by her victim’s liberty under any of circumstances
mother, left their house. Tupeng, who mentioned in Article 267 coupled with
was a neighbor of Mida, invited the latter indubitable proof of intent of the accused to
to his apartment to spend the night effect the same. The victim’s lack of
therein to which Mida voluntarily agreed. consent is also a fundamental element of
Tupeng led Mida to a room where she was kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The
to sleep. Ten minutes after leaving the involuntariness of the seizure and detention
room, Tupeng returned and sat on the bed is the very essence of the crime. Although
in the evening of the same day, the victim my have inceptually consented to
completely naked. He then had carnal go with the offender to a place but the
knowledge with Mida against her will. victim is thereafter prevented, with the use
After gratifying his lust, Tupeng warned of force, from leaving the place where he
Mida not to tell anyone about the incident was brought to with his consent and is
and warned her that her mother would detained against his will, the offender is
condemn her for sleeping at his guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal
apartment. Mida was padlocked inside the detention. (PEOPLE vs. PICKRELL, G.R No.
house for five days until she was rescued. 120409. October 23, 2003)
Was the complex crime of serious
illegal detention with rape committed?
ANSWER: Jose was convicted of rape for
NO, Tupeng is guilty only of rape and allegedly ravishing Marina, a mental
not of serious illegal detention. The original retardate. Marina testified that Jose
and primordial intention of Tupeng in kissed and undressed her, and then pulled
keeping Mida in his apartment was to rape her yellow-colored pants down to her
her and not to deprive her of her liberty. knees. He then mounted her and inserted
Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime his private organ into her vagina. He put
of rape if the real objective of the accused his clothes back on and left. The
is to rape the victim. Hence, Tupeng is information charged that Jose, by means
guilty only of rape under Article 335, of force, violence, threats and
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
not of the complex crime of serious illegal unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
detention with rape under Article 267, in knowledge of Marina, against her will.

relation to Articles 335 and 48 of the Code. On appeal, Jose asserts that under
Although Mida initially agreed to stay at the criminal complaint, he was charged of
appellant’s apartment, she did so because rape under paragraph 1, Article 335 of the
she had nowhere to go and she believed, at Revised Penal Code, as amended.
that time, that she was safe with Tupeng, However, the prosecution, through the
who was her neighbor. (PEOPLE vs. victim herself, failed to prove that he
SABARDAN, G.R. No. 132135. May 21, forced, threatened or intimidated her into
2004.) having sexual intercourse with him.
Furthermore, according to Jose, the
prosecutor merely proved that the victim

QUESTION NO. 25 was a mental retardate and that he had

May kidnapping be committed if the sexual intercourse with her. He cannot be
private complainant never resisted nor convicted of rape under paragraph 2,
complained to go with the offender at the Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code;
inception of the crime? otherwise, he would be deprived of his
right to be informed of the nature of the
crime charged against him. Despite the
ANSWER: trial court’s findings that the prosecution
failed to prove rape as charged in the

criminal complaint under paragraph 1, NO, the facts fail to show that
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the Francisco deliberately or consciously
court still convicted him of rape under the adopted a mode of attack to ensure the
second paragraph of the said Article killing. There is even no showing of the
May the appellant be convicted of particulars as to how the aggression
rape through force or intimidation? commenced or the events that led to the
stabbing. For treachery to be qualifying,
ANSWER: the prosecution must prove the confluence
YES, it bears stressing that force or of the following requisites: (a) the
intimidation may be actual or constructive. employment of means of execution that
In this case, the victim is a mental gives the person attacked the opportunity to
retardate. Jose took advantage of her defend himself or retaliate; (b) that the
condition and succeeded in having sexual accused deliberately and consciously
intercourse with her. Hence, he is guilty of adopted the means of execution.
forcible rape. Neither was evident premeditation
Carnal knowledge of an insane attendant in the commission of the crime.
woman, knowing her to be insane, is rape. Francisco may have intended to kill the
There is a lack of capacity to consent, and it victim even before October 11, 1995.
is presumed that the act was done without However, there is nothing in the facts to
her consent, hence it is against the female’s show that from that time on, until the
will; the force required may be in the victim was stabbed and killed, Francisco
wrongful act itself. It follows that such act is performed overt acts indicating his
done ‘forcibly and against her will.’ In an determination to commit the crime. For
indictment the office of the words ‘against evident premeditation to be appreciated the
her will’ is merely to negative consent. following must be present: (1) the time
(PEOPLE vs. BALATAZO, G.R. No. 118027. when the accused decided to commit the
January 29, 2004) crime; (2) an overt act showing that the
accused clung to their determination to
commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a
QUESTION NO. 27 sufficient period of time, as to allow the
Francisco rented a room in the accused to reflect upon the consequences of
house under the care of Purita. Purita the act. (PEOPLE vs. SANTIAGO, G.R. No.
occupied another room in the house. She 147314. February 6, 2004)
had a very close relationship with
Francisco, but became disillusioned when
he failed to pay the monthly rentals. QUESTION NO. 28
Exasperated, Purita had the matter placed Rogelio was convicted by the trial
in the police blotter. This infuriated court of homicide, with the mitigating
Francisco. circumstance of voluntary surrender
One evening, Francisco arrived at appreciated in his favor. He was sentenced
his neighbor’s residence and blurted: to the penalty of imprisonment ranging
“Pare, I will kill Purita.” However, the from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
neighbor told Francisco that Purita was prision mayor, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS
very kind to him and counseled against and EIGHT (8) MONTHS of Reclusion
killing her. At 5:00 a.m. on October 11, Temporal minimum.
1995, Francisco stabbed Purita while the Was the penalty properly imposed?
later was asleep inside her room, thereby
causing her death. ANSWER:
Were the aggravating circumstances YES. The imposable penalty for
of treachery and evident premeditation homicide under Article 249 of the Revised
present in this case? Penal Code is reclusion temporal in its full
range. From this penalty, the maximum of
ANSWER: the indeterminate penalty shall be
determined by taking into account the
attendant modifying circumstances. Under thighs and legs. Unable to bear the acts of
Article 64, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Esteban, Marilyn ran away and went to her
Code, when only a mitigating circumstance sister who was working as a housemaid.
is present in the commission of a crime, the Marilyn related to him her traumatic
maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall ordeals at the hands of Esteban. Marilyn’s
be taken from the minimum of the penalty sister took pity on her and accompanied
imposed by law, viz., reclusion temporal in her to the police station where she
its minimum period which has a range of 12 reported Esteban’s sexual assault and
years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. lascivious acts on her. Marilyn was also
To determine the minimum of the subjected to a medical examination.
indeterminate penalty, reclusion temporal At the arraignment, Esteban entered
has to be reduced by one degree without a plea of not guilty. After trial, the trial
taking into account the attendant modifying court convicted him of the crime charged.
circumstances. The penalty lower by degree Esteban contends that although he
is prision mayor in its full range. Under touched the private parts of Marilyn and
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence grabbed her breasts, held her thighs and
Law, the minimum of the penalty shall be legs and kissed her, the said acts were not
within the full range of prision mayor which lewd and do not constitute the felony of
is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The trial acts of lasciviousness.
court is given the widest discretion to fix the Did the trial court commit error in
minimum of the indeterminate penalty convicting Esteban of acts of
provided that such penalty is within the lasciviousness?
range of prision mayor. In fixing the
minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the ANSWER:
trial court is to consider two aspects, NO. There can be no doubt that
namely: first, the more or less mechanical Esteban was propelled by lewd designs when
determination of the extreme limits of the he touched Marilyn’s private part, mashed
minimum imprisonment period; and second, her breasts, touched her thighs and legs and
the broad question of the factors and kissed her. What constitutes lewd or
circumstances that should guide the lascivious conduct must be determined from
discretion of the court in fixing the minimum the circumstances of each case. The
penalty within the ascertained limits. presence or absence of the lewd designs is
Hence, the trial court may impose inferred from the nature of the acts
prision mayor in its minimum, or medium, or themselves and the environmental
maximum period as the minimum of the circumstances. Esteban had been subjecting

indeterminate penalty. In this case, the trial Marilyn to lascivious acts whenever he and
court correctly imposed 8 years and 1 day of Marilyn were alone by themselves in the
prision mayor as minimum. (GARCIA vs. house.
PEOPLE, G.R. No. 144699. March 10, 2004) The elements of acts of lasciviousness
are: (1) that the offender commits any act
of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is
QUESTION NO. 29 done under any of the following
A criminal complaint was filed circumstances: (a) by using force or
against Esteban for acts of lasciviousness intimidation; (b) when the offended woman
allegedly committed against Marilyn, the is deprived of reason or otherwise

former’s 13-yr-old step-daughter. unconscious; or (c) when the offended party

During the trial Marilyn testified is under twelve (12) years of age. (PEOPLE
that Esteban would torment her day-by- vs. VICTOR, G.R. No. 127904. December 5,
day by persistently kissing her and 2002)
touching her private parts. On August 5,
1996, Esteban and Marilyn were alone in
the house. He again touched Marilyn’s QUESTION NO. 30
private parts, kissed her on the lips, Vicente, on his way home from
mashed her breasts, and touched her work, found his wife and daughter,

Teodora and Julia respectively, at a (PEOPLE vs. SIBONGA, et al., G.R. No.
neighbor’s house hiding. He found out 95901. June 16, 2003)
that, Gabby, the husband of his other
daughter Julia, earlier came to Vicente’s
house drunk and started boxing and QUESTION NO. 31
kicking Julia; after which Gabby went In a party, Leo and his wife were
home and slept. singing together. After their duet, the
Frightened of further trouble from couple decided to go home. Leo handed
Gabby, Vicente referred the matter to the microphone to Bernabe, remarking,
Juan, the leader of “Greenan,” an "Bayaw, its your turn because we are going
aggrupation of civilians armed with bolos home with my wife." Bernabe took the
and hunting knives who tasked themselves microphone and began to sing with his
to preserve the peace and order in the wife Gracia. However, he was enraged
community. Vicente talked to Juan and when the videoke suddenly stopped.
the latter agreed to arrest Gabby. The Bernabe shouted. "Vulva of your mother,
other members of Greenan were then who is tough here, you are fouling me."
called to help in the arrest. They went to Simultaneously, Bernabe pulled a table
Gabby’s house and were able to eventually and turned it upside down. He grabbed an
awaken him and tied his hands behind empty bottle of beer grande and smashed
him. Gabby was brought before Julia and it. He then shouted invectives at the
was asked why he had boxed Julia. Gabyy Pontawe family: "Vulva of your mother,
said it was because he was angry and that you Pontawe family" Leo confronted
he was drunk. Juan then and there Bernabe and demanded to know why
adjudged him guilty. They then started Bernabe was so mad at his family. To
walking. When Juan and the others were 3 prevent the already tense situation from
meters ahead of Gabby, they stopped. further escalating, Gracia prodded Leo to
Gabby was then stabbed at his side and leave. As Leo was retrieving his slippers,
back and then finally shot. Greenan Bernabe tried to hit him with the broken
dumped the dead body at a meat grinder bottle. Leo parried the thrust and boxed
where it was shredded beyond Bernabe on the nose.
recognition. They were separated by the
Can cruelty be appreciated as an Barangay Kagawads who brought Bernabe
aggravating circumstance in this case? to his tricycle. On his way, to the tricycle,
Bernabe warned Leo: "Wait for me and I
ANSWER: will come back." Nonong, Bernabe's son,
NO. Paragraph 21, Article 14 of the drove the tricycle and brought the latter
Revised Penal Code provides that there is home.
cruelty in the commission of a felony when After about thirty to forty minutes,
the wrong done in the commission of the Bernabe returned, armed with a short gun.
crime is deliberately augmented by causing He positioned himself in a dark place.
other wrong not necessary for its Suddenly, Gracia heard a gunshot. She
commission. There is no cruelty when the turned her head towards the direction
other wrong is done after the victim is where the gunshot emanated from and
already dead. The test in appreciating saw that Leo was hit on the left temple
cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is and fell to the ground, mortally wounded.
whether the accused deliberately and After trial, the court rendered a
sadistically augmented the wrong by causing decision finding Bernabe guilty beyond
another wrong not necessary for its reasonable doubt of murder qualified by
commission, or inhumanly increased the treachery and evident premeditation.
victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at (1) Did the trial court gravely err in
his person or corpse. In this case, Juan and finding that the crime committed
his confederates threw Gabby into the meat was one of murder qualified
grinder, the latter was already dead. by treachery?
(2) Did the trial court gravely err in the resolution of his will. The mere fact that
appreciating evident after his fight with Leo, Bernabe came back
premeditation as an aggravating with a gun and shot Leo does not constitute
circumstance? proof of evident premeditation. The facts
show that after Bernabe left the gathering
ANSWER: at Beverly's house, he returned armed with a
(1) NO. Treachery is committed when gun after the lapse of thirty to forty
two conditions concur, namely: (1) at the minutes. Considering that it took Bernabe
time of the attack, the victim was not in a twenty to thirty minutes to get to his house
position to defend himself; and (b) the and a similar period of time to return to
assailant consciously and deliberately Beverly's residence, it cannot be said that
adopted the particular means, methods or Bernabe had sufficient time to ponder upon
forms of attack employed by him. The the dire consequences of the crime he had
essence of treachery is the sudden and decided to commit. (PEOPLE vs.
unexpected attack by the assailant on an MONTEMAYOR, G.R. No. 125305. June 18,
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of 2003)
any real chance to defend himself and
thereby ensuring its commission without risk
to himself. There may still be treachery QUESTION NO. 32
even if before the assault, the assailant and On November 9, 1995, Rolando
the victim had an altercation and a fisticuffs asked Leah and Lettymar, could stay in his
where, after the lapse of some time from house to watch over his daughter,
the said altercation, the assailant attacked Princess, while he was out on his tricycle
the unsuspecting victim without affording making a living. The two consented and
him of any real chance to defend himself. In stayed at Rolando’s house. At that
this case, Bernabe, armed with a gun, shot particular moment, Samuel, was staying
the victim as the latter was conversing with with his brother Rolando.
his wife and Beverly's other guests in front of At about 6:30 pm, Leah was seen
the gate of the latter's house. The victim emerging from the house of Rolando,
was unarmed. The attack of the appellant running towards the street while shouting
was sudden. The victim had no inkling that “uncle Sam, uncle Sam!” She was followed
the appellant had returned, armed with a by Samuel who was in possession of an 8-
gun. inch knife. Samuel stabbed Leah eighteen
(2) YES. For evident premeditation to times which ultimately caused her death.
be appreciated, it must be proved the After trial on the merits, the court a

confluence of the following elements: (1) quo found Samuel guilty beyond
the time when the offender determined to reasonable doubt of murder, qualified by
commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly the circumstance of abuse of superior
indicating that he has clung to such strength, for the death of Leah. Samuel
determination; and (c) sufficient lapse of contends that the trial court erred in
time between the determination and holding him guilty of murder since the
execution to allow the offender to reflect killing was not made with abuse of
upon the consequence of his act. The superior strength.
aggravating circumstance must be proved Was there present in the killing
with equal certainty as the commission of abuse of superior strength as to qualify the

the crime charged. The mere lapse of time crime to murder?

does not prove evident premeditation. There
must be proof of overt acts of the appellant,
showing when he conceived the plan to kill ANSWER:
the deceased, and that in the interim, he YES. Samuel was armed with a knife
clung to his determination to kill, and that and used the same in repeatedly stabbing
sufficient time had elapsed between his Leah, a young wisp of a girl, no less than
determination and the execution of the eighteen times after overtaking her.
crime to allow his conscience to overcome Infragably, then, Samuel abused his superior

strength in stabbing Leah. There are no
fixed and invariable rules regarding abuse of QUESTION AND ANSWER
superior strength or employing means to
weaken the defense of the victim. QUESTION
Superiority does not always means numerical What are the cardinal principles of
superiority. Abuse of superiority depends criminal law? Give the exceptions thereto.
upon the relative strength of the aggressor
vis-a-vis the victim. There is abuse of ANSWER:
superior strength even if there is only one The three cardinal principles or
malefactor and one victim. Abuse of characteristics of criminal law are:
superiority is determined by the excess of (a) GENERALITY. Criminal laws apply
the aggressor’s natural strength over that of to all persons who commit crimes
the victim, considering the position of both in Philippine territory, regardless
and the employment of means to weaken of their nationality, gender, age or
the defense, although not annulling it. The other personal circumstances.
aggressor must have taken advantage of his Exceptions to this are treaty
natural strength to insure the commission of stipulations, laws of preferential
the crime. (PEOPLE vs. LORETO, GR No. application, and principles of
137411-13. February 28, 2003) public international laws.
(b) TERRITORIALITY. Criminal laws
apply to all offenses committed
QUESTION NO. 33 within Philippine territory.
Diego, who was wearing a pair of Exceptions to this rule are those
short pants but naked from waist up, found in Art. 2 of the RPC which
entered the bedroom of Mona, went on provides for extraterritorial
top of her, held her hands, removed her jurisdiction of our courts.
panty, mashed her breasts and touched (c) PROSPECTIVITY. Penal laws cannot
her sex organ. However, Diego saw Rossel, make an act punishable in a
Mona’s younger brother peeping through manner in which it was not
the door of the room and dismounted. He punishable when committed.
berated Rossel for peeping and ordered Exception to this rule is whenever
him to go back to his room and to sleep. a new statute dealing with a crime
Diego then left Mona’s room. establishes conditions more
Is Diego guilty of consummated acts lenient or favorable to the
of lasciviousness defined in Article 336 of accused, it can be given
the Revised Penal Code or attempted rape retroactive effect. However, this
under Article 335 of the said Code? exception has no application: 1)
where the new law is expressly
ANSWER: made inapplicable to pending
Diego is guilty of attempted rape and actions or existing causes of action
not of acts of lasciviousness. Diego intended and; 2) where the offender is a
to have carnal knowledge of Mona, and by habitual criminal under Art. 62,
the series of his overt acts he commenced RPC.
the execution of rape which, if not for his
desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape.
Although Diego desisted from performing all
the acts of execution however his desistance
was not spontaneous as he was impelled to
do so only because of the sudden and
unexpected arrival of Rossel. (PEOPLE vs.
LIZADA, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, QUESTION
2003) What is Mistake of Fact? What are
its requisites?
Mistake of Fact is a misapprehension Pablo is liable for attempted murder.
of fact on the part of the person who caused When the wound inflicted could not have
injury to another. He is not, however, caused instantaneous death, the offender is
criminally liable because he did not act with liable only for the attempted stage of the
criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact crime. The element of treachery attended
destroys the presumption of criminal intent the stabbing incident, which qualifies the
which arises upon the commission of a attempted killing to murder. Indeed, the
felonious act. The requisites of Mistake of essence of treachery is the swift and
Fact are as follows: unexpected attack on an unarmed victim
1. That the act done would without the slightest provocation on the part
have been lawful had the facts been as the of the victim. The stabbing was not
accused believed them to be; preceded by an altercation nor did Felipe
2. That the intention of the give the slightest provocation. Pablo’s act
accused in performing the act should be of putting his right arm around Felipe's
lawful. shoulder right before stabbing Felipe
3. That the mistake must be ensured that his victim would not be able to
without fault or carelessness on the part of dodge his attack. (PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ,
the accused. G.R. Nos. 154348-50. June 8, 2004)

What are the kinds of desistance What is the subjective phase of the
recognized by law under Art. 6 of the RPC? commission of an offense?

Legal desistance- the desistance The subjective phase is that portion
referred to in law which would obviate of the act constituting the crime included
criminal liability unless the overt or between the act which begins the
preparatory act already committed in commission of the crime and the last act
themselves constitute a felony other than performed by the offender which, with the
what the actor intended. prior acts, should result in the consummated
Factual desistance- actual desistance crime. From that point forward, the phase is
of the actor which is made after the objective. May also be said to be the
attempted stage of the crime; the actor is period occupied by the acts of the offender

still liable for the attempt over which he has control – that period
between the point where he begins and the
point which he voluntarily desists. If
QUESTION between these 2 points the offender is
Felipe was having a drinking binge stopped by reason of any cause outside of
with Pablo. Then, Pablo, who was sited his own voluntary desistance, the crime is
beside Felipe, placed his right arm around attempted. If he is not so stopped but
Felipe and, with his left hand, stabbed continuous until he performs the last act the
him, whispering, “This is my Christmas gift crime is frustrated.
to you, Brod”. Felipe was wounded on his

left chest and fell down. For his injuries,

Felipe was brought to the Bayawan District QUESTION
Hospital where he was confined for four X, after promising Y to give him
days. According to the doctor who treated P10,000.00, induced the latter (Y) to kill
Felipe, the only way by which Felipe's life Z, who at the time was vacationing in an
would have been endangered was if the isolated island in the sea which can easily
wound developed a major infection. be reached by a boat. W, who owns the
Discuss Pablo’s criminal liability. only motor boat in the locality, offered to
transport and actually transported Y to

said island. Upon the reach the island, Y not have been accomplished. (Revised
killed Z. Indicate whether X, Y and W is a Penal Code, Art 17, Par. 3)
principal or accomplice in the commission
of the crime. Give your reasons.
ANSWER: Is prior agreement to commit a
X is a principal by inducement. By crime necessary for the existence of
promising to give Y P10,000.00 to kill Z, conspiracy?
which is an agreement for a consideration,
the inducement was made directly with the ANSWER:
intention of procuring the commission of the NO, conspiracy is present so long as
crime. Further, the facts show that Y has no the acts of the accused clearly manifest a
personal reason to kill Z except the concurrence of the will and a common intent
inducement which is therefore, the or design to commit a crime. It may be
determining cause for the commission of the inferred if it is proven that two or more
crime by Y. persons aimed their acts towards the
Y is a principal by direct participation accomplishment of the same unlawful
because he killed Z pursuant to the object, each doing a part so that their acts –
inducement or agreement for a although apparently independent- were in
consideration and he, therefore, personally fact connected and cooperative, thus
took part in the execution of the act indicating a closeness of personal association
constituting the crime. (Revised Penal Code, and a concurrence of sentiment. This is also
Art. 17, par. 1) known as the Doctrine of Implied
W is neither a principal nor an Conspiracy.
accomplice. Although W offered and actually Conspiracy may be inferred from the
transported Y to the island where Z was acts of the accused-- from the beginning,
vacationing as he owns the only motor boat during and after the crime-- which are
in the locality, the facts of the problem do indicative of design, concerted action and
not show that W has any knowledge of the concurrence of sentiments. Once it is shown
criminal design nor purpose of Y. that there is concurrence in action or action
To be a principal by indispensable in concert to achieve a criminal design, the
cooperation, it is essential that there be act of one is deemed the act of all the
either anterior conspiracy or unity of conspirators. (PEOPLE vs. FELIPE, G.R. No.
criminal purpose an intention immediately 142505. December 11, 2003)
before the commission of the crime. This
means participation in the same resolution
of Y, the principal by direct participation. W QUESTION
is not a principal by direct participation At one time, past midnight, the
because he did not participate directly in accused went downstairs with a loaded
the execution of the act constituting the gun to investigate what he thought were
crime. Clearly, he also is not a principal by the footsteps of an uninvited guest. After
inducement because he did not induce Y to seeing what appeared to him an armed
kill Z. stranger looking around and out to rob the
W is not an accomplice because he house, he fired his gun seriously injuring
has also no knowledge of the criminal design the man. When the lights turned on, the
of Y, the principal by direct participation. If unfortunate victim turned out to be his
W has knowledge of the criminal purpose of brother in law on his way to the kitchen to
Y then he will be a principal by get some light snacks. The accused was
indispensable cooperation because he indicted for serious physical injuries.
cooperated in the commission of the crime Should the accused, given the
by Y, which is the transporting of Y to the circumstances, be acquitted or convicted?
island in his boat which is the only one in Why?
the locality, without which the crime would
The accused should be convicted specifically provided for the special complex
because, even assuming the facts to be true crime that shall be applied according to the
in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar rules on imposition of the penalty.
when there is no unlawful aggression on the (2) YES, if there was conspiracy
person is not justified. Defense of property between the offender(s) committing the
or property right does not justify the act of coup d’etat and the offenders committing
firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of
limb of the accused is already in imminent one would be the crime of the other and
and immediate danger. Although the vice versa. This is possible because the
accused acted out of a misapprehension of offender in coup d’etat may be any person
the facts, hi is not absolved from criminal belonging to the military or the national
liability. (2003 Bar Examinations) police or public officer, whereas rebellion
does not so require. Moreover, the crime of
coup d’etat may be committed singly,
QUESTION whereas rebellion requires a public uprising
(1) Distinguish between an ordinary and taking up arms to overthrow the duly
complex crime and a special constituted government. Since the two
complex crime as to their crimes are essentially different and punished
concepts and as to the imposition with distinct penalties, there is no legal
of penalties. impediment to the application of Art. 48 of
(2) Can there be a complex crime of the Revised Penal Code.
coup d’etat with rebellion? (3) YES, coup d’etat can be
(3) Can there be a complex crime of complexed with sedition because the two
coup d’etat with sedition? crimes are essentially different and
distinctly punished under the Revised Penal
ANSWER: Code. Sedition may not be directed against
(1) In concept – the Government or non-political in
An ordinary complex crime is made up objective, whereas coup d’etat is always
of two or more crimes being punished in political in objective as it is directed against
distinct provisions of the Revised Penal Code the Government and led by persons or public
but alleged in one information either officer holding public office belonging to the
because they were brought about by a single military or national police. Art. 48 of the
felonious act or because one offense is a Code may apply under the conditions therein
necessary means for committing the other provided. (2003 Bar Examinations)
offense or offenses. They are alleged in one

information so that only one penalty shall be

imposed. QUESTION
A special complex crime, on the other In what cases is Art. 48 not
hand, is made up of two or more crimes applicable?
which are considered only as components of
a single indivisible offense being punished in ANSWER:
one provision of the Revised Penal Code. The rules in Art. 48 are not
As to penalties – applicable:
In ordinary complex crime, the (1) When the crimes subject of the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be case have common elements;

imposed and in its maximum period. (2) When the crimes involved are
In special complex crime, only one subject to the rule of absorption
penalty is specifically prescribed for all the of one crime by the other;
component crimes, which are regarded as (3) Where the two offenses resulting
one indivisible offense. The component from a single act are specifically
crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes punished as a single crime, such as
and so the penalty for the most serious less serious physical injuries with
crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor serious slander of deed, since this
in its maximum period. It is the penalty is punished under Art. 265 par. 2,

as the single crime of less serious QUESTION
physical injuries with ignominy; Distinguish provocation from
(4) In special complex crimes; vindication of a grave offense as mitigating
(5) When the crimes involved cannot circumstances.
be legally complexed, viz:
a) Malicious obtention or ANSWER:
abusive service of search In the case of provocation, it is made
warrant (Art. 129) with directly only to the person committing the
perjury; felony; in vindication, the grave offense may
b) Bribery (Art. 210) with be committed also against the offender’s
infidelity in the custody of relatives mentioned by the law.
prisoners; In vindication, the offended party
c) Maltreatment of prisoners must have done a grave offense to the
(Art. 235) with serious offender or his relatives mentioned in the
physical injuries; law; while in provocation, the cause that
d) Usurpation of real rights brought about the provocation need not be a
(Art. 312) with serious grave offense.
physical injuries; and In provocation, it is necessary that
e) Abandonment of persons in the provocation or threat immediately
danger (Art. 275) and preceded the act, i.e., that there be no
crimes against minors (Arts. interval of time between the provocation
276-278) with another and the commission of the crime; while in
felony. vindication, the vindication of the grave
offense may be proximate, which admits of
an interval of time between the grave
QUESTION offense done by the offended party and the
When may insanity be appreciated commission of the crime by the accused.
as an exempting circumstance under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code?
ANSWER: Lionel was being arrested for having
Insanity under Art. 12, par. 1, of The committed a crime. When he saw the
Revised Penal Code exists when there is a police moving towards him, he offered no
complete deprivation of intelligence in resistance and allowed them to arrest him
committing the act, i.e., appellant is without protest. May the mitigating
deprived of reason; he acts without the least circumstance of voluntary surrender be
discernment because of complete absence of appreciated in Lionel’s favor?
the power to discern; or, there is a total
deprivation of freedom of the will. The fact ANSWER:
that a person behaves crazily is not NO, the fact that Lionel did not resist
conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent arrest or deny his criminal act did not
meaning of the word "crazy" is not constitute voluntary surrender. A surrender,
synonymous with the legal terms "insane," to be voluntary, must be spontaneous and
"non compos mentis," "unsound mind," must clearly indicate the intent of the
"idiot," or "lunatic." The popular conception accused to submit himself unconditionally to
of the word "crazy" is being used to describe the authorities. Here, the Lionel was
a person or an act unnatural or out of the arrested. There was, therefore no voluntary
ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy surrender to speak of because Lionel was in
manner but it does not necessarily and fact arrested. There is voluntary surrender
conclusively prove that he is legally so. only when the following requisites are
(PEOPLE vs. FLORENDO, G.R. No. 136845. proven, namely: (1) the offender has not
October 8, 2003) actually been arrested; (2) the offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority;
and (3) the surrender was voluntary. A
surrender to be voluntary must be When the offenders attacked the group of
spontaneous, showing the intent of the the deceased in the heat of anger, they
accused to submit himself unconditionally to could not have taken advantage of such
the authorities, either because he circumstances. Furthermore, since they did
acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save not afford the offenders any advantage,
them the trouble and expense necessarily such circumstances could not have
incurred in his search and capture. facilitated the commission of the crime.
Voluntary surrender presupposes (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14)
repentance. (PEOPLE vs. OSPIG, G.R. No.
141766, November 18, 2003)
An accused charged with homicide May the aggravating circumstance of
pleaded “not guilty” during the dwelling be appreciated if the offender did
preliminary investigation before the not enter the victim’s house, as when the
Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of offender shot the victim with a rifle from a
the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), distance with the bullet passing through
he pleaded “guilty” freely and voluntarily the window?
upon arraignment. Can his plea of guilty
before the RTC be considered spontaneous ANSWER:
and thus entitle him to the mitigating YES, it is not necessary that the
circumstance of spontaneous plea of accused should have actually entered the
guilty? dwelling of the victim to commit the offense
— it is enough that the victim was attacked
ANSWER: inside his own abode, although the assailant
YES, his plea of guilty before the RTC might have devised means to perpetrate the
can be considered spontaneous, for which he assault from the outside. The triggerman
is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of showed greater perversity when, although
plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before outside the house, he attacked his victim
the Municipal Court is immaterial because it inside the latter's own house when he could
was made during preliminary investigation have very well committed the crime without
only and before a court not competent to necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the
render judgment. (1999 Bar Examinations) victim's home. He who goes to another's
house to hurt him or do him wrong is guiltier
than he who offends him elsewhere.

Four armed persons casually met August 19, 2003)

another group of three armed persons in
an uninhabited place at nighttime. An
altercation ensued between the two QUESTION
groups which led to a street fight. In the Topak, a pervert, raped Maria who
heat of anger, the four armed persons was at that time only 10 years old. Maria’s
were able to kill all the members of the family filed a complaint against Topak.
other group. May their criminal liability When Topak knew this he went to Maria’s
for the death of the three armed persons family and offered a promise to marry
be aggravated by the circumstances of Maria. When Topak was being arrested he

nighttime, uninhabited place and by a argued that there was already a promise to
band? marry Maria hence, his criminal liability
should be extinguished. Decide.
NO. When the meeting between the ANSWER:
offenders and the group of the deceased was Topak’s criminal liability was not
casual, the offenders could not have sought extinguished. Article 266-C of RA 8353
for the circumstances of nighttime, requires that there be a subsequent valid
uninhabited place, and their forming a band. marriage to effect the extinction of the

criminal liability. Mere promise to marry is penalty, not an accessory penalty. (Ramos v.
not enough. Further, there can be no valid Gonong, 72 SCRA 59) Moreover, there is no
marriage between Maria and Topak as Maria subsidiary penalty if:
is only 10 years old, she lacks the capacity a) The principal penalty is higher
to enter into a valid marriage. than prision correccional;
b) It is not of fixed duration;
c) The subsidiary penalty, though
QUESTION properly imposable is not expressly
What are the distinctions between stated in the judgment;
pardon by the President and by the d) The penalty is not FIDS (Fine;
offended party? Imprisonment and fine; destierro and
fine; suspension and fine); or
ANSWER: e) The penalty does not include fine.
1. Pardon by the President extinguishes
the criminal liability of the offender;
such is not the case when the pardon QUESTION
is given by the offended party. T lodged in the Maharlika Hotel
2. Pardon by the President cannot without notifying the management of the
include civil liability that the offender hotel of the goods he brought along with
must pay; but the offended party can him. Neither did he follow the directions
expressly waive the civil liability that of the hotel with respect to the care and
the offender must pay. vigilance over said goods. One evening,
3. In cases where the law allows pardon the bellboy of the hotel poked a gun on T
by the offended party (Art 344), the and divested him of his goods.
pardon should be given before the Assuming that the said bellboy
institution of the criminal prosecution absconded, may the owner of the hotel be
and must be extended to both made subsidiarily liable for the restitution
offenders; whereas, pardon by the of said goods, or to pay the value thereof?
President is granted only after Reason fully.
conviction and may be extended to
any of the offenders. ANSWER:
The owner of the hotel is subsidiarily
and civilly liable for the restitution of the
QUESTION goods or to pay the value thereof. An
What is subsidiary imprisonment? inkeeper or tavernkeeper is subsidiarily and
When may a person undergo subsidiary civilly liable for restitution of goods taken by
imprisonment? means of robbery with violence and
intimidation against persons when the same
ANSWER: is committed by the inkeeper’s employees.
Under Article 39 of the RPC, Maharlika Hotel is subsidiarily liable because
subsidiary imprisonment is a subsidiary the goods were taken by the hotel’s bellboy
personal liability imposed when the person by means of robbery. The nature of the
has no property with which to meet the FINE business of the hotel is to provide not only
mentioned in Article 38, paragraph 3 at the lodging for the guests but also security to
rate of one day for each P8.00. their persons and effects. The necessity for
However, in order that subsidiary this security to their persons and effects is
imprisonment may be enforced, it must be apparent from the provisions of Articles
expressly stated in the judgment that in 1998-2003 of the New Civil Code and Article
case of failure to pay the fine, the accused 102 of the Revised Penal Code. The security
must suffer subsidiary imprisonment. In mentioned is not confined to effects
absence of such express statement, the delivered to the hotel management for
subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed. safekeeping but also to all effects brought in
The reason is because subsidiary the hotel. The reason is that the hotel
imprisonment is a substitute principal
management has supervision and control committed. The prescribed penalty for
over their inns and the premises thereof. parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.
Impose the proper principal penalty.

The proper penalty is reclusion
QUESTION perpetua. Even if there are two or more
Juan de Castro already had three (3) mitigating circumstances, a court cannot
previous convictions by final judgment for lower the penalty by one degree. In cases in
theft when he was found guilty of Robbery which the law prescribes a penalty
with Homicide. In the last case, the trial composed of two indivisible penalties, the
judge considered against the accused both lower penalty shall be applied when the
recidivism and habitual delinquency. The commission of the crime is attended by
accused appealed and contended that in some mitigating circumstances and there are
his last conviction, the trial court cannot no aggravating circumstances. (Revised
consider against him a finding of Penal Code, Art. 63, par. 3)
recidivism and, again, habitual
delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious?
A was convicted of the complex
ANSWER: crime of death through falsification of
NO, the appeal is not meritorious. public document. Since the amount
Recidivism and habitual delinquency are involved do not exceed P200.00, the
correctly considered in this case because the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is
basis of recidivism is different from that of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
habitual delinquency. periods. The penalty prescribed by law for
Juan is a recidivist because he had falsification of public document is prision
been previously convicted by final judgment mayor plus fine not to exceed P5,000.00.
for theft and again found guilty of robbery Impose the proper penalty.
with homicide, which are both crimes
against property, embraced under the same ANSWER:
Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised The proper penalty is ANY RANGE
Penal Code. The implication is that he is WITHIN prision correctional (six months and
specializing in the commission of crimes one day to six years) as MINIMUM, to ANY
against property, hence aggravating in the RANGE within prision mayor maximum (ten

conviction for robbery with homicide. years and one day to twelve years) as
Habitual delinquency, which brings MAXIMUM. For the purpose of determining
about an additional penalty when an the penalty next lower in degree, the
offender is convicted a third time or more penalty that should be considered as a
for specified crimes, is correctly considered starting point is the whole of prision mayor,
because Juan had already three (3) previous it being the penalty prescribed by law, and
convictions by final judgment for theft and not prision mayor in its maximum period,
again convicted for robbery with homicide. which is only the penalty actually applied
And the crimes specified as basis for because of Article 48 of the Revised Penal
habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, Code. The penalty next lower in degree

theft and robbery. therefor is prision correccional and it is

within the range of this penalty that the
minimum should be taken. (R.A. NO. 4103)
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime
of parricide. The court found three QUESTION
mitigating circumstances, namely plea of Efren, a bus driver, was charged
guilty, lack of instruction and lack of with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that Homicide for the death of Romy. The trial

court found him guilty as charged. Efren he was already twenty three years only
applied for probation and was given due when sentenced, he is no longer eligible to
course by the trial court. He thereafter suspension of sentence. (2003 Bar
filed a full appeal regarding the imposition Examinations)
of damages. The RTC denied to give due
course to the notice of appeal. May Efren
file a notice of appeal notwithstanding his QUESTION
application for probation? Can juvenile offenders, who are
recidivists, validly ask for suspension of
ANSWER: sentence? Explain.
YES, the appeal in this case involved
only the civil aspect of the trial court’s ANSWER:
judgment. It must be remembered that the YES, so long as the offender is a
civil liability of the accused is not part of minor at the time of promulgation of
the penalty for the crime committed. PD sentence. The law establishing family
968, otherwise known as the Probation Law courts, Republic Act 8369, provides to this
provides that the filing of the application for effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the
probation shall be deemed a waiver of the court should promulgate the sentence and
right to appeal. Relying solely on the letter ascertain any civil liability which the
of the law, the filing of the application for accused may have incurred. However, the
probation should be deemed a waiver of the sentence shall be suspended without the
right to appeal. However, the above law need of application pursuant to PD 603,
provides only for the suspension of the otherwise known as the Child and Youth
sentence imposed on the accused by virtue welfare code. (RA 8369, Sec. 5A) It is under
of his application for probation. It has PD 603 that an application for the
absolutely no bearing on civil liability. suspension of the sentence is required and
Although the execution of sentence is thereunder it is one of the condition of
suspended by the grant of probation, it does suspension of sentence that the offender be
not follow that the civil liability of the a first time convict: this has been displaced
offender, if any, is extinguished. (SALVAN by RA 8369. (2003 Bar Examinations)
VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 153845, September
11, 2003)
What is the purpose for fixing the
QUESTION maximum and minimum terms in the
A was two months below eighteen Indeterminate Sentence Law?
years of age when he committed the
crime. He was charged with the crime ANSWER:
three months later. Instead of preparing to The purpose of the law in fixing the
serve a jail term, he sought a suspension minimum term of the sentence is to set the
of the sentence on the ground that he was grace period at which the convict may be
a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled released on parole from imprisonment,
to a suspension of sentence? Reasons. unless by his conduct he is not deserving of
parole and thus he shall continue serving his
ANSWER: prison term in jail but in no case to go
NO, A is not entitled to a suspension beyond the maximum term fixed in the
of the sentence because he is no longer a sentence. The minimum and maximum
minor at the time of the promulgation of the terms are fixed because they serve as bases
sentence. For purposes of suspension of for the following rules:
sentence, the offender’s age at the time of 1. Whenever a prisoner has: (a)
promulgation of the sentence in the one served the MINIMUM penalty imposed on
considered, not his age when he committed him, and (b) is fit for release on parole,
the crime. So, although A was below upon terms and conditions prescribed by the
eighteen when he committed the crime, but Board of
Indeterminate Sentence, he shall be penalty to be imposed shall be the minimum
released on parole. period of reclusion temporal, that is, from
2. But when the paroled prisoner twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
violates any of the conditions of his parole fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months.
during the period of surveillance, he Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
may be rearrested to serve the remaining the minimum of the penalty to be imposed
unexpired portion of the shall be the penalty next lower which is
MAXIMUM sentence. prision mayor in any of its periods.
3. Even if a prisoner has already Therefore, Arnie may be sentenced to an
served the MINIMUM, but he is not fitted for indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and
release on parole, he shall one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum,
continue to serve his sentence until the end to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months
of the MAXIMUM term. of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
(PEOPLE vs. ANTONIO, G.R. No. 128900, July
14, 2000)
In fixing the indeterminate penalty,
how are the minimum and maximum QUESTION
periods determined? On June 1, 1988, a complaint for
concubinage committed in February 1987
ANSWER: was filed against Roberto in the municipal
When the crime is punished by the trial court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of
Revised Penal Code, the maximum period is preliminary investigation. For various
that which could be properly imposed in reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when
view of the ordinary mitigating and the judge of said court decided the case by
aggravating circumstances. The minimum dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since
period is that which shall be within the the crime was committed in Manila. The
range of the penalty next lower to that case was subsequently filed with the city
provided by the RPC for the offense without fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed on the
regard to the ordinary mitigating and ground that the crime had already
aggravating circumstances. Except in the prescribed. The law provides that the
case of privileged mitigating circumstances, crime of concubinage prescribes in 10
which are taken into consideration in years. Was the dismissal by the fiscal
determining such penalty next lower. The correct? Explain.
penalty next lower is determined according

to the scale provided in Art. 71 of the RPC. ANSWER:

When the crime is punished by special NO, the fiscal’s dismissal of the case
law maximum and minimum terms shall not on alleged prescription is not correct. The
be more than nor less than the period of filing of the complaint with the municipal
imprisonment fixed by the special law. trial court, although only for preliminary
investigation, interrupted and suspended the
period of prescription in as much as the
QUESTION jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
Arnie committed homicide. He determined by the allegation in the
voluntarily surrendered to the police. complaint or information, not by the result

Impose the indeterminate penalty. of proof. (2001 bar examinations)

Having been found guilty of the crime QUESTION
of homicide, the penalty that should be A war between Philippines and
imposed on Arnie should be reclusion China was declared as the latter sought to
temporal under Article 249 of the Revised invade the country. Members of the
Penal Code. There being one (1) mitigating Chinese army then bought bandages from a
circumstance of voluntary surrender, the drugstore owned by Juan. When the

Philippine army found out, Juan was Moreover, piracy falls under Title One
charged and later on convicted of treason. of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As
Was his conviction proper? such, it is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law. The same
ANSWER: principle applies even if Roger and Andres
NO, the sale of bandages to the were charged, not with a violation of
enemy does not per se constitute treason qualified piracy under the penal code but
because the said articles are not exclusively under a special law, Presidential Decree No.
for war purposes and their sale does not 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine
necessarily carry an intention on the part of waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532
Juan to adhere to the enemy. Although it should be applied with more force here
may constitute giving aid or comfort to the since its purpose is precisely to discourage
enemy, still there is no treason as there is and prevent piracy in Philippine waters. It is
no intent to betray the Philippines. likewise, well-settled that regardless of the
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 114) law penalizing the same, piracy is a
reprehensible crime against the whole
world. (PEOPLE vs. TULIN, G.R. No. 111709,
QUESTION August 30, 2001)
Roger and Andres boarded by means
of a motorboat, the M/T Tabangao as said
vessel was sailing along the island of QUESTION
Mindoro. Armed with M-16 rifles, they Private First-Class Manatad was
detained the crew and took complete treacherously gunned down by a group of
control of the vessel. Thereafter, Roger 8 men while manning the traffic at
ordered the crew to take the "M/T Bonifacio St. in Mandaue City. As a result
Tabangao" to a port in Singapore. There, of the killing, two teams of police officers
the vessel’s cargo was transferred to the were tasked to conduct surveillance on a
hold of another vessel, the "Navi Pride". suspected safehouse of members of the
Roger and Andres sold the cargo and New People’s Army (NPA) Sparrow Unit
divided the proceeds between themselves. located in Cebu City. Here, they were able
When charged with qualified piracy under to arrest Rodrigo and Edwin. Rodrigo
P.D. 532, Roger and Andres argue that executed an extrajudicial confession
they cannot be convicted for acts done wherein he confessed that he and the
outside Philippine waters or territory, group of Edwin killed Pfc. Manatad. He
since the cargo was taken and disposed of likewise admitted that he and Edwin were
beyond Philippine waters. members of the Sparrow Unit and that
Is there contention correct? they undertook the killing of Pfc. Manatad
upon the orders of their rebel commander.
ANSWER: Should Rodrigo and Edwin be
NO, because the attack on and convicted of direct assault with murder,
seizure of "M/T Tabangao" and its cargo for the reason that Manatad was a killed in
were committed in Philippine waters, the performance of his duties as a person
although the captive vessel was later in authority?
brought by the pirates to Singapore where
its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and ANSWER:
sold. Notwithstanding that Presidential NO, where the accused who was
Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and charged with murder admitted his
seizure of the vessel and its cargo be membership with the NPA and the killing of
committed in Philippine waters, the an agent of a person in authority, the crime
disposition by the pirates of the vessel and committed is not direct assault with murder
its cargo is still deemed part of the act of but rebellion. Since the killing was made
piracy, hence, the same need not be pursuant to the order of a rebel commander,
committed in Philippine waters. the crime was politically motivated, in that
the same was committed in the furtherance
of the rebellion. Crimes committed in 5. to despoil, for any political or
furtherance of a rebellion are deemed social end, any person,
absorbed therein and are not punishable municipality or province, or the
separately. national government of all its
The crime of rebellion consists of a property or any part thereof.
vast movement of men and a complex net of In the instant case, there is no
intrigues and plots. Acts committed in the sedition because the purpose of the attack
furtherance of rebellion though crimes in was not known. It does not appear that the
themselves are deemed absorbed in one purpose of the accused in attacking the
single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a jeepney passengers is one of those
police officer, knowing too well that the mentioned above.
victim is a person in authority, is a mere
component or ingredient of rebellion or an
act done in furtherance of the rebellion. It QUESTION
cannot be made a basis of a separate May arbitrary detention be
charge. (PEOPLE vs. DASIG, 221 SCRA 549) committed if the offended party is not
kept within an enclosure to restrict him of
his freedom of locomotion?
During the May 2004 elections, five ANSWER:
persons, armed with guns and knives, YES, arbitrary detention may still be
attacked a jeepney wherein eight committed even if the offended party was
policemen, the chief of police, and other not kept within an enclosure. In establishing
passengers were riding. Two policemen, the intent to deprive the victim of his
the jeepney driver and two children were liberty, it is not necessary that the offended
killed while two policemen were wounded. party be kept within an enclosure to restrict
The accused were charged with the crime his freedom of locomotion. The prevailing
of sedition with multiple murder and jurisprudence on illegal detention is that the
double frustrated murder. Decide. curtailment of the victim's liberty need not
involve any physical restraint upon the
ANSWER: victim's person. If the acts and actuations of
In sedition, the uprising must be done the accused can produce such fear in the
publicly and tumultuously in order to attain mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the
by force, intimidation, or by other means latter, to the extent that the victim is
outside of legal methods any of the compelled to limit his own actions and

following objects: movements in accordance with the wishes of

1. to prevent the promulgation or the accused, then the victim is, for all
execution of any law or the intents and purposes, detained against his
holding of any popular election; will. (ASTORGA vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No.
2. to prevent the national 154130, October 1, 2003)
government, or any provincial or
municipal government, or any
public officer thereof from freely QUESTION
exercising its or his functions, or Jason falsified a private document
prevent the execution of any and used the same to obtain fraudulent

administrative order; gain by means of deceit. He was charged

3. to inflict any act of hate or with estafa through falsification. Was the
revenge upon the person or charge proper?
property of any public officer or ANSWER:
employee; NO, in such case, the crime
4. to commit, for any political or committed is falsification of private
social end, any act of hate or document only and not estafa through
revenge against private persons or falsification. There is no complex crime of
any social class; and estafa through falsification of private

document, because the immediate effect of latter. Juan excitedly attended the
falsification of private document is the same celebration and consequently violated his
as that of estafa. The falsification of a sentence. What is the crime committed by
private document cannot be said to be a Juan and what is penalty to be imposed?
means to commit estafa, because the
fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in ANSWER:
estafa, in the commission of which a private Juan committed the crime of evasion
document was falsified, is nothing more or of service of sentence under Art. 157 of the
less than the very damage caused by the RPC. This crime may be committed even if
falsification of such document. (Revised the convict was originally sentenced to
Penal Code, Art. 172) Destierro, as when he will enter the
prohibited places or come within the
prohibited radius to such places as stated in
QUESTION the judgment.
3 armed men broke into the GSIS The penalty to be imposed is not
building and expressed grief over the poor imprisonment but also destierro. The reason
performance of the agency. They called is that the penalty for the evasion cannot be
the people there to help themselves to all more severe than the penalty that was
the things found in the premises but they, evaded.
the accused, did not help themselves to a
single object. What was the crime
committed? QUESTION
Nono was convicted of the crime of
ANSWER: theft and was sentenced to imprisonment.
The accused committed the crime of His mother, desperate to have him
direct assault. There are two forms of released, went to the Municipal Mayor and
direct assault and the first is committed asked for his help. The mayor demanded
where the offenders through force, violence, P100,000.00 in exchange for the release
or intimidation committed acts aimed at any of Nono from imprisonment. When Nono
of the objectives of Rebellion or Sedition. In was not released, the mother filed a
the instant case, all the requisites for the bribery case against the mayor. Decide.
first form of sedition was present:
1. the accused used force, violence ANSWER:
or intimidation; The crime is not bribery because in
2. there was no public uprising bribery it is essential that the act which the
because there were only 3 of offender agrees to perform or which he
them; executes be connected with the
3. their aim is to attain any of the performance of his official duties. In the
purposes of rebellion or sedition, instant case, the release of a prisoner is not
which in this case is, to despoil for connected with the Mayor’s duties. Instead,
any political or social end, any the Mayor is guilty of estafa because by
person, municipality or province, promising the mother that he would release
or the national government of all Juan, he pretended to possess authority to
its property or any part thereof. do so.
(Revised Penal Code, Art 148)

QUESTION May the crime of Malversation be
Juan was sentenced to the penalty committed by a private individual? May
of Destierro wherein he was prohibited to private property be the subject matter of
enter the barrio of Lubang for a specified the crime of Malversation?
period. On May 2, the barrio of Lubang
celebrated its fiesta, and Max, the best ANSWERS:
friend of Juan since childhood invited the
YES, private individuals who, having to be consummated. It is enough that the
charge of any national, provincial or premises suffer destruction by burning.
municipal funds, revenue or property (Revised Penal Code, Art 320)
appropriate, take, or misappropriate or
consent, or through abandonment or
negligence permit another person to take QUESTION
them, are liable for the crime of A, while attending a fiesta at a
malversation. The same criminal liability neighboring town chanced upon Q who was
may be incurred by an administrator or wearing the shoes, pants and shirt
depositary of funds or property, attached, belonging to A which were stolen a month
seized or deposited by public authority, ago while being hanged outside A’s house
even if such property belongs to a private to dry.
individual. Realizing this, A immediately
YES, the expression, “even if such accosted Q and asserted his ownership
property belongs to a private individual”, is over the personal apparel worn by Q. A
a sweeping and all embracing statement so further demanded its return and when Q
as to include a case where private funds or refused to remove the clothing, the
property are involved, as long such funds or former drew a fan knife and threatened Q
property are placed in the custody of who eventually conceded.
accountable public officers. (Revised Penal Did A commit any crime?
Code, Article 222)
YES, A is guilty of grave coercion. Q
QUESTION was in the actual possession of the disputed
What is technical malversation? garments and with violence, A compelled Q
to remove the same and turn the things to
ANSWER: him which the latter initially did not desire
Technical malversation is a crime to give up if not for the threat given by A.
committed by any public officer who shall A compelled Q with violence and
apply any public funds or property under his threat to do something against the latter’s
administration to any public use other than will, this constitutes grave coercion
that for which funds or property were punished under the Revised Penal Code.
appropriated by law or ordinance. (Revised Even granting that A is the owner of
Penal Code, Article 220) the clothes, Q being in actual possession of
the same, the duty devolves upon A to seek

the aid of proper authority and assert

QUESTION ownership in a manner provided by law.
Edong threw a bag containing
gasoline at the house of another and lit it.
The front wall of the house started QUESTION
blazing. Forthwith, the neighbors poured A has an illegitimate son B, who
water on the burning portion of the house. mauled and killed the legitimate father of
Only a portion of the house was burned. A. Is B guilty of parricide?
Discuss Edong’s criminal liability.

ANSWER: NO, because under Art. 246 of the

Edong is liable for destructive arson in RPC on parricide, in case of other
the consummated stage. It is destructive ascendants (grandparents, great-
arson because fire was resorted to in grandparents, etc.) the relationship with the
destroying an inhabited house or dwelling. killer must be legitimate. The same is true
The arson is consummated because the with other descendants, that is,
house was in fact already burned although grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.
not totally. In arson, it is not required that Since B is an illegitimate child of A he can’t
the premises be totally burned for the crime

be held guilty of parricide for killing A’s nature. The fact that the injured party may
father (B’s grandfather). have artificial teeth, if he has the necessary
means and so desires, does not repair the
injury, although it may lessen the
QUESTION disfigurement. (Revised Penal Code, Art.
Mr. X killed: (1) a woman with 263)
whom he lived without the benefit of
clergy, (2) their child who was only two
days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their QUESTION
adopted son. Rudy was charged with rape. It was
What crime or crimes did Mr. X alleged in the information that the victim
commit? was a minor and that Rudy was the step-
father of the victim. During the trial of
ANSWER: the case, it was proved, among others,
Mr. X committed the following that Rudy was a live-in partner of the
crimes: victim’s mother. In the event of a
(1) Homicide or murder as the case conviction for the crime of rape, may Rudy
may be, for the killing of his be imposed the penalty of death?
common-law wife who is not
legally considered a spouse. ANSWER:
(2) Infanticide for the killing of the NO. Under section 11 of Republic Act
child as said child is less than (3) No. 7659, the death penalty is imposed in
days old. However the penalty rape cases where "the victim is under
corresponding to parricide shall eighteen (18) years of age and the offender
be imposed since A is related to is . . . the common-law spouse of the parent
the child within the degree of the victim." Being in the nature of
defined in the crime of parricide. special qualifying circumstances, the
(3) Parricide for the killing of their minority of the victim and her relationship
daughter, whether legitimate or to the offender must be both alleged and
illegitimate, as long as she is not proved with certainty.
less than three (3) days old at the In the case at bar, although the
time of the killing. information against Rudy alleged that he is
(4) Murder for the killing of their the stepfather of the victim, the evidence
adopted son as the relationship shows that complainant's mother, was not
between Mr. X and the said son married to Rudy and that he was in fact
must be by blood in order for merely the common-law spouse of the
parricide to arise. (1999 Bar victim’s mother. The death penalty could
Examinations) not be imposed since there is a disparity in
the allegation made in the information and
proof offered in the course of the trial, as
QUESTION accused was not in fact the victim’s
Tito struck X in the mouth with a stepfather. Indeed, a stepfather has been
lead pipe, causing the loss of the latter’s defined as the husband of one's mother by
four front teeth. What is the crime virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of
committed? which the person spoken of is the offspring.
For the foregoing reason, the death penalty
ANSWER: cannot be imposed on Rudy, should he be
Tito is liable for serious physical convicted, he shall be punished with
injury as the loss of teeth constitutes a reclusion perpetua. (PEOPLE vs.
deformity. By deformity is meant physical GONZALES, G.R. Nos. 139445-46, June 20,
ugliness, permanent and definite 2001)
abnormality. It must be conspicuous and
visible. The injury contemplated is an injury
that cannot be repaired by the action of
Revised Penal Code or that specified by law
QUESTION such as under Section 11 of Republic Act No.
Lucas raped his sister Y. Y testified 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised
that Lucas inserted his penis inside her Penal Code. Wherein it is provided that the
vagina and that Lucas ejaculated twice death penalty is to be imposed in rape cases
during the sexual intercourse that lasted "when the victim is under eighteen (18)
for about thirty minutes, after which Lucas years of age and the offender is a parent,
withdrew his penis and left. The trial ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
court convicted Lucas of two counts of by consanguinity or affinity within the third
qualified rape and sentenced him to suffer civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
the penalty of death on both counts, the the parent of the victim." The Court has
rape being qualified by the circumstance since held that the circumstances
of relationship under Art. 15 of the enumerated by the amendatory law are to
Revised Penal Code. be regarded as special qualifying
(1) Should Lucas be convicted of (aggravating) circumstances.
two counts of rape? When the penalty to be imposed is a
(2) Will the alternative range of penalties where the maximum
circumstance of relationship warrant the penalty is death and the appreciation of an
imposition of the death penalty? aggravating circumstance would call for the
imposition of the maximum penalty, which is
ANSWERS: death, the term "aggravating circumstance"
(1) NO. Lucas committed only one must be strictly construed. The law must
act of rape although he ejaculated twice declare unequivocally an attendant
during the sexual act. Lucas did not circumstance as qualifying to warrant the
withdraw his penis to insert it again into the imposition of the death penalty. The
vagina or to "touch" the labia majora or the Constitution expressly provides that the
labia minora when he ejaculated the second death penalty may only be imposed for
time. It is not the number of times that the crimes defined as heinous by Congress. Any
offender ejaculates rather it is the attendant circumstance that qualifies a
penetration or "touching" that determines crime as heinous must be expressly so
the consummation of the sexual act. Y prescribed by Congress.
testified that Lucas’ penis penetrated her However, resort must be made to the
genitalia. At that point, Lucas had already strict interpretation of the term "aggravating
consummated the rape. The mere circumstance" only for the purpose of
introduction of the penis into the labia imposing the death penalty. In all other

majora of the victim's genitalia engenders cases where the maximum penalty is not
the crime of rape. Hence, it is the death, the term "aggravating circumstance"
"touching" or "entry" of the penis into the must be interpreted in its broad or generic
labia majora or the labia minora of the sense so as to include the alternative
pudendum of the victim's genitalia that circumstances under Article 15 of the
consummates rape. Revised Penal Code. (PEOPLE vs. ORILLA,
(2) NO. The Revised Penal Code is G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004)
silent as to when the alternative
circumstance of relationship is mitigating
and when it is aggravating. Jurisprudence QUESTION

considers relationship as an aggravating Under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code,

circumstance in crimes against chastity. exemplary damages as a part of the civil
However, rape is no longer a crime against liability may be imposed when the crime
chastity for it is now classified as a crime was committed with one or more
against persons. Moreover, the aggravating aggravating circumstances. May the
circumstance sufficient to justify the appreciation of the qualifying aggravating
imposition of the death penalty must not circumstance of relationship in rape cases
only be duly alleged and proven, it must be justify the award of exemplary damages?
one of those enumerated in Article 14 of the

ANSWER: there was only one woman (victim) killed.
YES, the term "aggravating Is he correct?
circumstances" used by the Civil Code, the
law not having specified otherwise, is to be ANSWER:
understood in its broad or generic sense. NO, he can be charged with and
The commission of an offense has a two- convicted of six counts of the special
pronged effect, one on the public as it complex crime of homicide even if only one
breaches the social order and the other upon person was killed. In the special complex
the private victim as it causes personal crime of rape with homicide, the homicide is
sufferings, each of which is addressed by, used to qualify or raise a penalty provided
respectively, the prescription of heavier by law. It is not necessary that there are as
punishment for the accused and by an award many persons killed as are the crimes of
of additional damages to the victim. The rape with homicide. It is possible that only
increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver one person is killed and the death of that
felony underscores the exacerbation of the person is used to qualify or to aggravate the
offense by the attendance of aggravating penalty for each of the rapes committed by
circumstances, whether ordinary or the accused. There is one common
qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the denominator, the homicide aggravates the
criminal which is basically a State concern, penalty in all six crimes of rape. Thus,
the award of damages, however, is likewise, where the offender commits six acts of rape
if not primarily, intended for the offended against the same victim, the homicide
party who suffers thereby. It would make committed on the occasion or by reason of
little sense for an award of exemplary each rape, must be deemed as a constituent
damages to be due the private offended of the special complex crime of rape with
party when the aggravating circumstance is homicide. Therefore, there will be as many
ordinary but to be withheld when it is crimes of rape with homicide as there are
qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or qualifying rapes committed.
nature of an aggravating circumstance is a In effect, the presence of homicide
distinction that should only be of qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising
consequence to the criminal, rather than to its penalty to the highest degree. Thus,
the civil, liability of the offender. In fine, homicide committed on the occasion or by
relative to the civil aspect of the case, an reason of the rape, loses its character as an
aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary independent offense, but assumes a new
or qualifying, should entitle the offended character, and functions like a qualifying
party to an award of exemplary damages circumstance. By fiction of law, it is merged
within the unbridled meaning of Article 2230 with rape to constitute a constituent
of the Civil Code. (PEOPLE vs. CATUBIG, element of a special complex crime of rape
G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001) with homicide. (Sanchez vs. Demetriou,
G.R. Nos. 111771-77, November 9, 1993)

Crisanto, a jeepney driver, was
speeding along a public thoroughfare,
QUESTION when suddenly his cellphone beeped. As
Mayor Anton raped Ms. S six (6) he reached for his cellphone, he did not
times. After satisfying his lust, he killed notice the traffic light turn red. As he
the hapless victim. Mayor Anton was crossed the intersection, he bumped a
charged with 6 counts of rape with pregnant lady crossing the street. The
homicide. He argues that it was absurd violent impact caused the baby to be
that he be charged with, much less dislodged from the lady’s womb. What
convicted of six counts of rape with crime, if any, did Crisanto commit?
homicide because the victim in this case
could not have died six times and that ANSWER:
Crisanto is liable for unintentional i.e., through violence or intimidation under
abortion through reckless imprudence. Art. 294 and not under the second mode
Abortion is committed whenever by reason (Art. 299). This was justified on the theory
of the application of violence upon a that violence or intimidation should supply
pregnant woman, the foetus dies while in the controlling qualification since it is graver
the mother’s womb or after it is expelled than robbery through force upon things and
therefrom. The abortion is unintentional produces greater disturbance to social order
because the violence, which caused the and the security of the individual.
expulsion of the fetus, was inflicted without However, a modification of this rule
intending an abortion. The violence was appears to have been later introduced by
inflicted through reckless imprudence as it Napolis vs. CA, et al., (43 SCRA 301) and
resulted from Crisanto’s inexcusable lack of People vs. Disney, et al. (GR No. L-41336,
precaution in driving his jeepney. (Revised February 18, 1983). Here, it was held that
Penal Code, Art. 257) Art. 294 applies only where robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons
takes place without entering an inhabited
QUESTION house under the circumstances in Art. 299.
Distinguish robbery with violence When both circumstances were present, the
against and intimidation of persons from offense shall be considered as a complex
grave threats to extort money. crime under Art. 48, and the penalty shall
be for the graver offense in the maximum
ANSWER: period.
The distinctions are:
1. In robbery, the intimidation is
actual and immediate; while in threats, the QUESTION
intimidation is conditional or future, In robbery, when should violence or
that is, not immediate; intimidation be present?
2. In robbery, the intimidation is
personal, while in threats, it may be through ANSWER:
an intermediary; The general rule is that if there is
3. In threats, the intimidation may violence or intimidation at any time before
refer to the person, honor or property of the asportation is complete, the taking of
offended party or that of his family; personal property is qualified to robbery. It
while in robbery, the intimidation is is not necessary that violence or
directed only to the person intimidation should be present from the very

of the victim; beginning.

4. In robbery, the gain of the culprit But when the violence results in (a)
is immediate; whereas in threats, the gain homicide, (b) rape, (c) intentional
of the culprit is not immediate. mutilation, or (d) any of the serious physical
injuries penalized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Art. 263, the taking of personal property is
QUESTION robbery complexed with any of those
Where robbery was committed with crimes, even if the taking is already
violence against or intimidation of complete when the violence was used by the
persons, and force upon things was also offender. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 294)

present and employed by the offender,

should the crime be categorized and
punished under the first mode (Art. 294) QUESTION
or the second mode (Art. 299)? At about 8:00 o'clock in the
evening, after attending mass, sisters
ANSWER: Marilou and Maritess, together with their
In the case of People vs. Sebastian, et friends Imperio and Tumang, went home
al. (85 Phil. 601), it was held that the crime using an Isuzu pick-up. Suddenly, Gaid and
should be categorized under the first mode, Fortich, armed with handguns emerged

from the rear end of the vehicle and fired drawn in the absence of circumstances
a shot which hit the left side of the pick- sufficient to prove such intent beyond
up. They ordered Imperio and Tumang to reasonable doubt.
get out of the vehicle. Gaid thumped Fortich and Gaid are each guilty of
Imperio on the head with a .38 caliber the crime of forcible abduction with rape
revolver causing him to fall down, while and, likewise, of two counts of rape as
Tumang was hit several times by Fortich defined and penalized in Article 342, in
with fistblows in various parts of the body relation to Article 226-A, of the Revised
and momentarily lost consciousness. Penal Code for the abduction of Marilou and
Imperio and Tumang were then divested of the subsequent acts of rape committed
their valuables. against her. The same criminal liability is
Gaid and Fortich drove the pick-up, incurred by Fortich and Gaid with respect to
with Marilou and Maritess at the back seat, the forcible abduction of and subsequent
towards a dirt road where they parked the acts of rape committed against Maritess.
vehicle. At this juncture, Gaid had They are liable not only for the acts of rape
transferred to the backseat with Marilou committed personally by them but also for
while Maritess was made to sit up in front each act of rape committed by the other
with Fortich. Gaid poked his gun at the because of the existence of conspiracy.
right side of Marilou's neck and succeeded Fortich and Gaid acted in concert, each of
in having sexual intercourse with her. them doing his part in the commission of the
Maritess, on the other hand, was ravaged offense. It has been held that in such a case,
by Fortich. They switched victims twice the act of one becomes the act of all and
before divesting them of their possessions. each of the accused will thereby be deemed
What crime/s were committed by equally guilty of the crime committed.
Gaid and Fortich? More importantly, when the first act
ANSWER: of rape was committed by Fortich and Gaid,
As for the unlawful taking of Imperio the complex crime of forcible abduction
and Tumang’s valuables, Gaid and Fortich with rape was then consummated. Any
are liable for simple robbery. The subsequent acts of intercourse would be
asportation by Gaid and Fortich of the only separate acts of rape and can no longer
personal properties was done by means of be considered separate complex crimes of
violence against or intimidation upon the forcible abduction with rape. (PEOPLE vs.
persons of Imperio and Tumang. The FORTICH and GAID, G.R. No. 80399-404,
physical injuries inflicted upon Imperio and November 13, 1997)
Tumang by reason of or on the occasion of
the robbery are penalized under Article 294,
paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code. QUESTION
Slight physical injuries and less serious X, Z and Y successfully robbed a
physical injuries inflicted in the commission supermarket, however on their way out, X
of the robbery are absorbed in the crime of and Z killed Y to enable them to get a
simple robbery. larger share of the loot.
As for the violence inflicted upon the Is robbery with homicide committed
person of Tumang, the element of intent to even if the person killed is one of the
kill was not present. It must be stressed robbers?
that while Fortich was armed with a
handgun, he never shot Tumang but merely ANSWER:
hit him on the head with it. It has been held YES, robbery with homicide is
that intent to kill being an essential element committed when in the course of the
of the offense of frustrated or attempted robbery another robber is killed by
homicide, said element must be proved by companion, who wants to partake his share
clear and convincing evidence and with the of the loot.
same degree of certainty as is required of The law does not require that the
the other elements of the crime. The person killed is the owner of the property
inference of intent to kill should not be taken. Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
provides: “ Any person guilty of robbery with where analogous circumstances may be
the use of violence against xxx any person”. considered, hence, the remedy lies with the
Par. 1 points that when by reason or on the legislature. Consequently, unless and until a
occasion of the robbery, the crime of law is passed providing that the additional
homicide shall have been committed. The rape/s or homicide/s may be considered
killing of any person by reason or on the aggravating, the Court must construe the
occasion of the robbery should be punished penal law in favor of the offender as no
with the highest penalty regardless of the person may be brought within its terms if he
person killed. is not clearly made so by the statute. Under
this view, the additional rape committed by
accused-appellant is not considered an
QUESTION aggravating circumstance. (PEOPLE vs.
As Juditha was walking home, REGALA, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000 and
Alberto poked a knife at her back and PEOPLE vs. SULTAN, G.R. No. 132470, April
dragged her towards his house. Once 27, 2000)
inside, Alberto divested her of her
valuables. Then, he poked a knife at her
neck and had carnal knowledge of her QUESTION
against her will. After satisfying his lust, A was in need of money. Despaired
Alberto went outside of the house and and pressed by his needs and after
smoked a cigarette. Afterwhich, Alberto learning B’s plan, his neighbor, of going to
returned and again had carnal knowledge the province to attend on some important
of Juditha against her will. What crime matters, he finally decided to rob latter’s
was committed by Alberto? May the house. While B was away, A went to the
subsequent rape be considered as an former’s house to carry out his plan. Upon
aggravating circumstance? discovering that a padlock was attached to
B’s maindoor, A hammered the said lock.
ANSWER: As a result thereof, the lock was damaged.
Alberto committed the special Thereafter, A was able to enter the
complex crime of robbery with rape. He dwelling and has successfully taken some
committed both robbery and rape with the of the personal property of B therein.
intent to take personal property of another Was robbery with force upon things
preceding the rape. Under Art. 294, par. (1), committed?
of the Revised Penal Code, ". . . [a]ny person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence ANSWER:

against or intimidation of persons shall YES. Before, if the door was not
suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua damaged but only the lock attached to the
to death . . . when the robbery shall have door was broken, the taking from within is
been accompanied by rape . . ." only theft. But the ruling is now abandoned
As for the subsequent rape, the same because the door is considered useless
cannot be appreciated as an aggravating without the lock. Even if it is not the door
circumstance despite a resultant "anomalous that was broken but only the lock, the
situation" wherein robbery with rape would breaking of the lock renders the door useless
be on the same level as robbery with and it is therefore tantamount to the
multiple rapes in terms of gravity. The breaking of the door. Hence, the taking

Court realized that there was no law inside the house is considered robbery with
providing for the additional rape/s or force upon things. (Revised Penal Code,
homicide/s for that matter to be considered Art. 299)
as aggravating circumstance. It further
observed that the enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of QUESTION
the Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike Mrs. X was on board her Mercedes
in Art. 13 of the same Code which Benz, when her personal driver, Isabelo
enumerates the mitigating circumstances pulled over the side of the highway. A

man, who introduced himself as Mito, QUESTION
boarded the car. Isabelo explained to Mrs. Akmad was accused of unlawfully
X that Mito was his nephew and they taking a motorcycle with the use of
wanted to get money from her. At this violence and intimidation, and killing the
juncture, Mito poked a gun at Mrs. X’s owner thereof by reason of such unlawful
neck. Frightened, Mrs. X immediately taking. After trial, he was convicted of
handed over to Mito all the money in her Carnapping with Homicide. Was his
bag. conviction proper?
Are Isabelo and Mito liable for
highway robbery under P.D. 532 for the ANSWER:
reason that the robbery was committed NO, because there is no such crime
along a highway? denominated as Carnapping with Homicide.
The proper denomination for the crime is
ANSWER: Carnapping as defined and penalized under
NO, because Isabelo and Mito did not of Republic Act No. 6539, Sections 2 and 14.
commit the robbery indiscriminately against Under Republic Act No. 6539, Section 14,
any person, instead they committed the the penalty for carnapping in case the
same against a particular victim. owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as motor vehicle is killed in the course of the
highway robbery or brigandage only acts of commission of the carnapping shall be
robbery perpetrated by outlaws reclusion perpetua to death. (PEOPLE vs.
indiscriminately against any person or SIRAD, G.R. No. 130594, July 5, 2000)
persons on Philippine highways as defined
therein, and not acts of robbery committed
against only a predetermined or particular QUESTION
victim. If the purpose is only a particular Mrs. S was a bank teller. In need of
robbery, the crime is only robbery, or money, she took P5,000.00 from her
robbery in band if there are at least four money drawer and made it appear that a
armed participants. certain depositor made a withdrawal from
The mere fact that the robbery was his account when in fact no such
committed on a highway does not invite the withdrawal was made. What crime was
application of Presidential Decree No. 532. committed by Mrs. S?
The preambular clause of Presidential
Decree No. 532 reveals the intention of the ANSWER:
law to prevent lawless elements from Mrs. S is liable for qualified theft.
committing acts of depredation upon the Mrs. S was only in material possession of the
persons and properties of innocent and deposits as she received the same in behalf
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one of the bank. Juridical possession remains
place to another, thereby disturbing the with the bank. Juridical possession means
peace, order and tranquility of the nation possession which gives the transferee a right
and stunting the economic and social over the thing which the transferee may set
progress of the people. Indeed, it is hard to up even against the owner. If a bank teller
conceive of how a single act of robbery appropriates the money for personal gain
against a particular person chosen by the then the felony committed is theft. Further,
accused as their specific victim could be since Mrs. S occupies a position of
considered as committed on the "innocent confidence, and the bank places money in
and defenseless inhabitants who travel from her possession due to the confidence
one place to another," and which single act reposed on her, the felony of qualified theft
of depredation would be capable of "stunting was committed. (ROQUE vs. PEOPLE, G.R.
the economic and social progress of the No. 138954. November 25, 2004)
people". (PEOPLE vs. PUNO, G.R. No. 97471,
February 17, 1993)
Does a novation or compromise QUESTION
affect the criminal liability of a person Can an agent who failed to turn over
accused of estafa? Explain. the part of his collection which represents
his commission be held liable for estafa?
Novation or compromise does not ANSWER:
affect criminal liability of the offender of It depends. if the agent is authorized
the accused. So, partial payment or to retain his commission out of the amounts
extension of time to pay the amount he collected, there is no estafa. Otherwise,
misappropriated or acceptance of a he is guilty of estafa because the right to a
promissory note for payment of the amount commission does not make the agent a joint
involved does not extinguish criminal owner with a right to the money collected.
liability, because a criminal offense is
committed against the people and the
offended party may not waive or extinguish
the criminal liability that the law imposes
for the commission of the offense. QUESTION
In order that novation of contract Sita purchased 1,000 bags of sugar from
may relieve the accused of criminal liability, Suki, in payment thereof, Sita issued six
the novation must take place before the post-dated checks. Only two of the checks
criminal liability is incurred; criminal were honored by the drawee bank while
liability for estafa is not affected by the rest were returned for lack of suficient
compromise or novation of contact for it is a funds. Upon knowledge of the dishonor of
public offense which must be prosecuted her checks, Sita issued another set of
and punished by the state at its own checks as replacement for the ones that
volition. were dishonored. Regrettably, these
But if the compromise is executed checks were also dishonored. Sita then
before a criminal action is instituted or went to Suki and offered to make a partial
where the amount misappropriated was payment, explaining that she was unable
converted into a contract of loan and the to fund her checks on time due to the
accused was made to acknowledge the debt, sudden and unforeseen fluctuation in the
there is novation of contract so as to price of sugar, which resulted in her
extinguish any incipient criminal liability of inability not only to collect from her own
the accused; but the novation must be buyers, but to sell all the sugar as she had
express and must refer only to the incipient expected. Suki accepted the partial

criminal liability. (PEOPLE vs. BULI-E, G.R. payment and allowed Sita to return 92
No. 123146, June 17, 2003) bags of sugar.
Upon failure of Sita pay the rest of
the amount, she was charged with estafa
under par. 2(D), Art. 315 of the Revised
QUESTION Penal Code. May Sita be convicted of the
When does the act of postdating or crime charged?
issuing a check constitute estafa?
ANSWER: NO, because there was no fraud or

To constitute estafa, the act of deceit on the part of Sita. For the crime of
postdating or issuing a check in payment of estafa to exist, the element of fraud or bad
an obligation must be the efficient cause of faith is indispensable. And its presence must
defraudation and, as such, it should be be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before
either prior to or simultaneous with, the act the accused can be found guilty of such
of fraud. (NAGRAMPA v. PEOPLE, 386 SCRA crime.
412) These circumstances — the prompt
action of Sita in offering to replace the
dishonored checks and in later making

partial payment and the taking of postdated subsisting. But the man who had carnal
checks and subsequently of the replacement knowledge of her not knowing her to the
checks, and the acceptance of partial married shall not be liable for adultery.
payment — show, first, that in all probability (2002 Bar Examinations)
Suki knew that the funds to cover the six
postdated checks were to come from the
sale of the sugar which the accused had QUESTION
bought from it. This kind of a situation is not Mr. O is married. He has a paramour
unusual in the trading of commodities like with whom he has sexual relations on a
sugar and rice. If Suki had such knowledge, more or less regular basis. They meet at
then it follows that there was no deceit. And least once a week in hotels, motels and
where there is no proven deceit or fraud, other placed where they can be alone. Is
there is no crime of estafa. On the other Mr. O guilty of any crime?
hand, one who is guilty of bad faith would
probably not have acted the way the Sita ANSWER:
did. If she had fraudulent intentions at the Mr. O is guilty of the crime of
time of the sale and the issuance of the concubinage by having sexual intercourse
subject checks, her normal reaction would under scandalous circumstances with a
have been to hide or at least avoid or delay woman who is not his wife. Having sexual
confrontation with Suki. But she did neither. relations on a more of less regular basis on
On the contrary, as soon as she was, notified motels, hotels and other places may be
of the dishonor, she immediately went to considered a scandalous circumstance that
Suki to offer replacement checks and later, offends public conscience giving rise to
partial payment, both of which were criticism and general protest, such act being
accepted by Suki. (PEOPLE vs. SINGSON, imprudent and wanton and setting a bad
G.R. No. 75920, November 12, 1992) example. (2002 Bar Examinations)

Can a drawer who was acquitted or What is the meaning of virginity in
convicted under the Revised Penal Code or qualified seduction and consented
estafa be prosecuted under BP Blg. 22? abduction?
Virginity in qualified seduction does not
ANSWER: require physical virginity (virgo intacta) or
YES. An acquittal or conviction of the as the term is understood in medical
drawer under the Revised Penal Code is not science.
a bar to his prosecution or conviction under The legal view is that qualified seduction
BP 22, because the latter law requires the only requires virginity in law, i.e., that the
additional fact of the drawer’s knowledge of victim has no other voluntary carnal
lack of insufficiency of funds. relations with another man.
QUESTION Likewise, virginity inconsented abduction is
M, a married woman, had sexual not to be understood in its material sense,
intercourse with a man who was not her as to exclude a virtuous woman of good
husband. The man did not know she was reputation, since the essence of the crime of
married. What crime, if any, did each of abduction is not injury to the woman but the
them commit? Why? outrage and alarm to her family.

M, the married woman, committed
the crime of adultery under article 333 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, for
having sexual intercourse with a man not her QUESTION
husband while her marriage was still
Who are the persons responsible for
What is the rule regarding proof of
ANSWER: truth under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal
1. The person who publishes, exhibits Code?
or causes the publication, or
exhibition of any defamation in ANSWER:
writing or similar means As a general rule, proof of truth of
(Art.360,par. 1) the defamation against the victim is not a
2. The author or editor of a book of defense. Nonetheless, such proof of the
pamphlet truth is admissible if the act imputed
3. The editor or business manager of constitutes a crime, whether the victim is a
a daily newspaper, magazine or private individual or a public officer. In such
serial publication (Art. 360, par.2) cases, proof of the truth plus good motives
4. The owner of the printing plant and justifiable ends will warrant the
which publishes a libelous article acquittal of the accused.
with his consent and all other However, in the imputation of a crime
persons who in any way against public officers in connection with
participate in or have connection the performance of public functions, proof
with its publication of truth is an absolute defense; no need to
establish good motive.

Is honest mistake a compete defense QUESTION
in libel? When is slander considered grave or
No, the publication of the article ANSWER:
through an honest mistake is not a complete It is considered grave when it is of a
defense but serves only to mitigate damages serious or insulting nature, (Example: a false
where the article is libelous per se. charge of immorality) otherwise, it is only
considered simple slander.

What is malice in law and malice in QUESTION

fact in relation to the crime of libel? Is the defense of contributory

negligence applicable in criminal cases
ANSWER: through reckless imprudence?
Malice in Law - If on its fact the
article is defamatory, even if the facts ANSWER:
therein are true, it is presumed that the NO, the defense of contributory
offender acted with malice. Hence, no negligence does not apply in criminal cases
evidence regarding malice has to be through reckless imprudence since one
submitted except where what is involved is cannot allege negligence of another to
privileged communication under Art. 354, in evade the effects of ones own negligence.

which case malice in law cannot arise and

malice in fact has to be proved.
Malice in fact - If the article is not QUESTION
defamatory on its face or it is ambiguous, Bob was a neophyte of the Pasaway
but it can be considered libelous in light of Fraternity. He was taken to the house of
the surrounding circumstances which gave Dong, one of the members of the
rise to its existence, then actual malice on fraternity, for his final initiation rights.
the part of the offender has to be proved. The initiation rights were conducted in the
garage of the house. During the initiation

rights, Onyok, Dong’s house boy, was QUESTION
ordered by Dong to serve drinks and food Jenny was applying as a sales lady in
to the members of the fraternity who were the MS Superstore. Greg, the head of the
having a drinking spree as the initiation Human Resources Department, asked
was conducted. In the midst of the Jenny if she could raise her skirt so that
initiation rights, which involved physical he could see her legs. Greg told Jenny that
violence, Bob collapsed. The members of it was his policy that all sales ladies in MS
the fraternity, including Dong, panicked Superstore had flawless legs. Jenny
and immediately left the house. Before refused and decided to leave. Greg denied
leaving, Dong, instructed Onyok to take Jenny’s employment application for her
Bob to the hospital. Onyok did so, but refusal to accede to his demand.
upon arriving at the hospital, Bob was Is Greg liable for sexual harassment?
already dead. Onyok was arrested by the
police. After police interrogation, Onyok ANSWER:
reasoned that he was a mere house boy YES, Greg’s act of demanding Jenny
and he was not a member of the Pasaway raise to her skirt to view her legs clearly
Fraternity who conducted the hazing. His constitutes a demand for a sexual favor as a
statements led to the arrest of Dong. For condition for her employment. The Anti-
his part, Dong admitted having Sexual Harassment Act provides that a
participated in hazing Bob but argued that manager or employer who demands,
he had no intention to commit so grave a requests or otherwise requires any sexual
wrong. favor from another in a work related or
(1) May Onyok be charged for employment environment shall be liable for
violation of the Anti-Hazing Law? sexual harassment, regardless of whether
(2) Is Dong entitled to the the demand request or requirement is
mitigating circumstance that there was no accepted by the object of the act. Hence,
intention to commit so grave a Greg’s criminal liability is not affected by
wrong? Jenny’s refusal to accede to his demand.
(R.A. No. 7877, sec. 3)

(1) YES, Onyok may be charged under QUESTION
the Anti-Hazing Law because his presence How does B.P. Blg. 22 differ from
during the hazing is prima facie evidence of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the
participation therein as a principal unless he Revised Penal Code with regards to the
prevented the commission of the acts of drawer’s knowledge of insufficiency of
leading to the death of Bob. The Anti- funds?
Hazing Law in creating this presumption
does not distinguish whether the person ANSWER:
present is a member of the fraternity or not. In violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the
The law merely uses the phrase “any drawer’s knowledge of the insufficiencyof
person”. The facts clearly show that Onyok funds in or credit with the bank is required
did not do anything to prevent the infliction but not under the Revised Penal Code.
of physical violence against Bob causing the Deceit constituting false pretenses and
latter’s death. (R.A. No. 8049, sec. 4, par. fraudulent acts is inherent under the
e) Revised Penal Code but not under B.P. Blg.
(2) NO, the Anti-Hazing Law expressly 22. Pursuant to the Revised Penal Code, the
provides that any person charged with any check is issued in payment of an obligation
violation thereof shall not be entitled to the (for value) while B.P. Blg 22, makes
mitigating circumstance that there was no reference to a check issued to apply on
intention to commit so grave a wrong. (R.A. account or for value. From that fact the
No. 8049, sec. 4, par. e) relevant provisions of the Revised Penal
Code exclude checks issued in payment of a
pre-existing obligation because deceit or
false pretense must be prior to or Conviction under B.P. Blg. 22 requires
simultaneous with the commission of the knowledge on the part of the issuer at the
fraud. (PEOPLE vs. SABIO, 86 SCRA 568) time of the check's issuance that he did not
have enough funds or credit in the bank for
payment thereof upon its presentment. B.P.
QUESTION No. 22 creates a presumption juris tantum
Francisco purchased on installment, that knowledge of insufficiency of funds
from Francel Realty Corporation, a prima facie exists when the first and third
townhouse unit. Francisco then a elements of the offense are present,
postdated check, in payment of the namely: the making, drawing and issuance of
purchase price. After moving in his unit, any check to apply for account or for value;
Francisco complained to Francel regarding and the subsequent dishonor of the check by
defects in the unit and incomplete the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
features of the townhouse project. credit or dishonor for the same reason had
Francel ignored the complaint. Francisco not the drawer, without any valid cause,
sent "stop payment orders" to the bank. ordered the bank to stop payment. But such
Upon suggestion of the bank, Francisco evidence may be rebutted. If not rebutted
closed his checking account to avoid the or contradicted, it will suffice to sustain a
paymeny of bank charges. Due to the judgment in favor of the issue, which it
closure of petitioner's checking account, supports. Such knowledge of the
the drawee bank dishonored six postdated insufficiency of Francisco’s funds "is legally
checks. Francel filed a complaint against insufficiency of funds." But such
petitioner for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 presumption cannot hold if there is evidence
involving said dishonored checks. to the contrary.
Francisco argues that he cannot be Furthermore, following Article 11 (5)
convicted for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, of the Revised Penal Code, petitioner's
considering that he had cause to stop exercise of a right of the buyer under Article
payment of the checks issued to 23 of P.D. No. 957 is a valid defense to the
respondent. Considering that under P.D. charges against him. Offenses punished by a
No. 957, the buyer of a townhouse unit special law, like the Bouncing Checks Law,
has the right to suspend his amortization are not subject to the Revised Penal Code,
payments, should the subdivision or but the Code is supplementary to such a
condominium developer fail to develop or law. There is nothing in the text of B.P. Blg.
complete the project in accordance with 22, which would prevent the Revised Penal
duly-approved plans and specifications. Code from supplementing it. (SYCIP vs.

May Francisco be held liable for COURT OF APPEALS, GR No. 125059, March
violation of B.P. Blg. 22? 17, 2000)
NO, there is no showing that the time
said checks were issued, Francisco had
Luis issued a check to guarantee the
knowledge that his deposit or credit in the
payment of customer orders. When
bank would be insufficient to cover them
deposited after 157 days from its issuance,
when presented for encashment. The
the check was dishonored.
closure of Francisco’s account with the bank
In a prosecution for B.P. Blg 22, may
was not for insufficiency of funds. It was

Luis successfully contend that: (1) the

made upon the advice of the drawee bank,
checks were not issued in payment of an
to avoid payment of hefty bank charges each
obligation but were merely to guarantee
time Francisco issued a "stop payment" order
payment of customer orders, and that (2)
to prevent encashment of postdated checks
the since the check was presented for
in Francel's possession. Such fact contradicts
payment beyond 90 days from its issuance,
the prima facie presumption of knowledge of
the presumption of knowledge of lack of
insufficiency of funds.
funds under Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22
should not apply to him?

against uncollected deposit” and not
ANSWER: “drawn against insufficient funds”, will a
NO, Luis’ contentions are incorrect. prosecution under B.P. 22 prosper?
First, B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the issuance of a
bouncing check and not the purpose for ANSWER:
which it was issued nor the terms and NO, knowledge of insufficiency of
conditions relating to its issuance. To funds is rebutted when it is shown that the
determine the reason for which checks are maker or drawer pays or makes
issued, or the terms and conditions for their arrangements for the payment of the check
issuance, will greatly erode the faith the within five banking days after receiving
public reposes in the stability and notice that such check had been dishonored;
commercial value of checks as currency more so when the dishonored check is paid
substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade even before receipt of notice of dishonor.
and in banking communities. So what the Thus, it is essential for the maker or drawer
law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing to be notified of the dishonor of her check,
check and not the purpose for which it was so he could pay the value thereof or make
issued nor the terms and conditions relating arrangements for its payment within the
to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a period prescribed by law.
worthless check is malum prohibitum. If the reason for the dishonor of a
Second, the law does not require a check was that it was “drawn against
maker to maintain funds in his bank account insufficient funds”, the drawer thereof is
for only 90 days. It is not an element of the still liable under B.P. 22 because just the
offense. That the check must be deposited same, said drawer has no sufficient funds in
within ninety (90) days is simply one of the his account to cover the amount of the
conditions for the prima facie presumption check at the time of its presentment. This
of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. situation arises when a check is deposited
Neither does it discharge petitioner from his with the bank to fund another check drawn
duty to maintain sufficient funds in the against such bank, and the check so
account within a reasonable time thereof. deposited has not been credited by the
Under Section 186 of the Negotiable bank. Even with uncollected deposits, the
Instruments Law, "a check must be bank may honor the check at its discretion
presented for payment within a reasonable in favor of clients, in which case there
time after its issue or the drawer will be would be no violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
discharged from liability thereon to the Corollarily, if the bank so desires, it could
extent of the loss caused by the delay." By likewise dishonor the check if drawn against
current banking practice, a check becomes uncollected deposits, in which case the
stale after more than six (6) months, 23 or drawer could be held liable for violation of
180 days. The check was deposited 157 days BP Blg. 22. (ABARQUEZ vs. COURT OF
after the date of the check, hence said APPEALS, G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003)
checks cannot be considered stale. Only the
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds was lost, but such knowledge could QUESTION
still be proven by direct or circumstantial What is the crime of plunder under
evidence. (WONG vs. COURT OF APPEALS, the Plunder Law (R.A. No. 7080)?
G.R. No. 117857, February 2, 2001)
QUESTION It is committed by any public officer
May a person, who issued a check who, by himself or in connivance with
which was dishonored upon presentment members of his family, relatives by affinity
for payment, be convicted of B.P. 22 if he or consanguinity, business associates,
paid the amount of the check even before subordinates or other persons, amasses,
receipt of the notice of dishonor? accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth
What if the reason for the dishonor through a combination or series of overt or
of the check was that it was “drawn criminal acts:
(a) misappropriation or malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which
of public funds; falls under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1).
(b) receiving any commission or Verily, had the legislature intended a
kickbacks by reason of his public technical or distinctive meaning for
position; “combination” and “series”, it would have
(c) illegal disposition of assets taken greater pains in specially providing for
belonging to the government; it in the law. (ESTRADA vs.
(d) receiving or accepting shares of SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. 148560, November
stocks or equity in any business 21, 2001)
enterprise or undertaking;
(e) establishing monopolies or
combinations or implementation of QUESTION
decrees and orders intended to Is the crime of plunder malum in se
benefit particular persons; or malum prohibitum?
(f) taking undue advantage of official
position to the prejudice of the ANSWER:
government; Plunder is a crime of malum in se
in the aggregate amount of at because the constitutive crimes are mala in
least P50 Million. se. The elements of mens rea must be
These acts are mentioned only as proven in a prosecution for plunder.
predicate acts of the crime of plunder and Moreover, any doubt as to whether the
the allegations relative thereto are not to be crime of plunder is malum in se must be
taken or to be understood as allegations deemed to have been resolved in the
charging separate criminal offenses punished affirmative decision of Congress in 1993 to
under the Revised Penal Code, the Anti- include it among the heinous crimes
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and other punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
related penal statutes. These predicate acts The legislative declaration in R.A. 7659 that
merely constitute acts of plunder and are plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is
not crimes separate and independent of the malum in se. For when the acts punished are
crime of plunder. (SERAPIO vs. inherently immoral or inherently wrong,
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 148468, January they are mala in se and it does not matter
28, 2003) that such acts are punished in a special law,
especially since in the case of plunder the
predicate crimes are mainly mala in se.
QUESTION (Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan,

What is meant by “combination” G.R. No. 148560, November 21, 2001)

and “series” of overt or criminal acts
under the Plunder Law?
ANSWER: Manzo was arrested for robbery of
When the Plunder Law speaks of valuable pieces of jewelry owned by his
“combination”, it is referring to at least two former employer. He admitted that he
(2) acts falling under different categories of took the jewelry but sold the same to
enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d). appellant. Subsequently, appellant was
Example: raids on the public treasury in Sec. arrested and from his possession the police

1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent recovered some of the stolen pieces of
conveyance of assets belonging to the jewelry. He was charged with violation of
National Government under Sec. 1 par. (d), P.D. 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law. By way
subpar. (3). of defense, he claimed that the valuables
On the other hand, to constitute a recovered from him were legitimately
“series” there must be two (2) or more overt acquired by him from other sources other
or criminal acts falling under the same than Manzo and that he is not involved in
category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, the crime of robbery committed by Manzo.
par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation

(1) Does the Anti-Fencing Law (a) Was the conversation between
require the accused to be, in any Atty. Tito and Leo “private” in nature as
way, involved in the crime of to be the subject of violation of the R.A.
robbery (or theft)? No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-
(2) Did appellant committed a Wiretapping Act?
violation of the Anti-Fencing (b) Is an extension telephone
Law? among the prohibited devices in R.A. No.
4200, such that its use to overhear a
ANSWER: private conversation would constitute a
(1) NO. It is enough that the elements violation of said Act?
a) a crime of robbery or theft has ANSWERS:
been committed; (a) YES, the telephone conversation
b) the accused is not a principal between Atty. Tito and Leo was "private" in
or accomplice in the the sense that the words uttered were made
commission of the robbery or between one person and another as
theft, but receives, keeps, distinguished from words between a speaker
acquires, buys and/or sells, or and a public. As worded under the law, if a
in any matter deals in any party secretly records a public speech, he
article, item, object or would not be penalized under Section l
anything of value derived from because the speech is public. The
robbery or theft; conversations or communications
c) the accused knows or should contemplated under R.A. No. 4200 are those
have known that such article, made between one person and another
item, object or thing was the person — not between a speaker and a
proceeds of robbery or theft; public. (GAANAN vs. INTERMEDIATE
and APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No. L-69809,
d) there is, on the part of the October 16, 1986; RAMIREZ vs. HONORABLE
accused, an intent to gain for COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 93833,
himself or for another. (Dizon- September 28, 1995)
Pamintuan vs. People, 234 (b) NO, an extension telephone
SCRA 63) cannot be placed in the same category as a
(2) YES. All the elements of the crime dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices
of fencing are present. The prosecution has enumerated in Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as
sufficiently established the fact of robbery the use thereof cannot be considered as
as testified to by the person who committed "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone
the same. At any rate, the law does not line. The telephone extension in this case
require proof of purchase of the stolen was not installed for that purpose. It is a
articles by the accused as mere possession separate device and distinct set of a
thereof is enough to give rise to a movable apparatus consisting of a wire and a
presumption of fencing. Appellant, who was set of telephone receiver not forming part of
in possession of some of the stolen articles a main telephone set which can be detached
has not rebutted this presumption. (Capili or removed and can be transferred away
vs. CA, G.R. No. 139250, August 16, 2000) from one place to another and to be plugged
or attached to a main telephone line to get
the desired communication coming from the
QUESTION other party or end. The law refers to a "tap"
Atty. Tito telephoned Leo to discuss of a wire or cable or the use of a "device or
the settlement of a direct assault case arrangement" for the purpose of secretly
filed by Atty. Tito’s client against Leo. overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
Atty. Ed, Leo’s retained counsel, secretly communication. There must be either a
listened to the telephone conversation physical interruption through a wiretap or
through a telephone extension. the deliberate installation of a device or
arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit
or record the spoken words. for oneself or for any person, in connection
It can be readily seen that our with any contract or transaction between
lawmakers intended to discourage, through the government and any other party,
punishment, persons such as government wherein a public officer in an official
authorities or representatives of organized capacity has to intervene under the law.
groups from installing devices in order to These modes of committing the offense are
gather evidence for use in court or to distinct and different from each other. Proof
intimidate, blackmail or gain some f existence of any of them suffices to
unwarranted advantage over the telephone warrant conviction. The lack of “demand” is
users. Consequently, the mere act of immaterial. After all, Section 3(b) of R.A.
listening, in order to be punishable must 3019 uses the word “or” between requesting
strictly be with the use of the enumerated and receiving.
devices in RA No. 4200 or others of similar (2) YES, because there was be a clear
nature. (GAANAN vs. INTERMEDIATE intention on the part of the public officer to
APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No. L-69809, take the gift so offered and consider it as his
October 16, 1986) or her own property from then on. Mere
physical receipt unaccompanied by any
other sign, circumstance or act to show
QUESTION acceptance is not sufficient to lead the
Petitioner, a BIR official tasked to court to conclude that the crime has been
examine the Books of Accounts for Income committed. To hold otherwise would
and Business Tax and other accounting encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame
records of professionals, one day appeared up public officers by simply putting within
in the complainant’s office and told the their physical custody some, gift, money or
latter that his tax deficiencies would other property. (PELIGRINO vs. PEOPLE,
amount to P500,000.00. Because his books G.R. No. 136266, August 31, 2001)
were not examined, complainant
entertained the idea that it was the start
of an extortion, and he tried to negotiate QUESTION
for a smaller amount. He requested the What is the meaning of “gross
assistance of the NBI for an entrapment negligence” in the context of Sec. 3 (e) of
operation. RA 3019?
On the set payoff date, petitioner
appeared in the complainant’s office. The ANSWER:

meeting ensued and the complainant To be held liable under said section,
handed an envelope with the planted the act of the accused which caused undue
money. Petitioner accepted the envelope, injury must have been done with evident
opened it, looked inside and saw the bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
money. He then closed the envelope and Gross negligence has been defined as
placed it in front of him. After that, the negligence characterized by the want of
NBI apprehended him. even slight care acting or omitting to act I a
(1) Is demand, coming from the situation where there is a duty to act, not
accused public officer, necessary to inadvertently but willfully and intentionally
convict him under Section 3 (b) of with a conscious indifference to

R.A. 3019? consequences in so far as other persons may

(2) Was there receipt of payoff be affected. It is the omission of that care
money? which even inattentive and thoughtless men
never fail to take on their property.
ANSWER: (Alejandro v. People, 170 SCRA 400) In case
(1) NO. Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 of public officials, there is gross negligence
penalizes three distinct acts – (1) demanding when a breach of duty is flagrant and
or requesting; (2) receiving; or (3) palpable. (QUIBAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 244
demanding, requesting and receiving” any SCRA 224)

mitigating circumstance of minority
may be appreciated.
QUESTION: 7. Attempt or conspiracy to commit
May conviction under the Anti-Graft any of the crimes penalized therein are
and Corrupt Practices Act preclude punishable with the same penalty as
prosecution for crimes committed by when the crime is consummated or actually
public officers under the Revised Penal committed.

NO, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt QUESTION
Practices Act expressly provides that in A and B were walking along
addition to acts and omissions of public Mendiola when they saw a group of
officers already penalized by existing law policemen approaching them. B
(such as those under Title Seven of the immediately handed to A, the sachet of
Revised Penal Code), the acts or omissions shabu he was carrying inside his pocket.
described therein constitute corrupt The police saw A placing the shabu inside
practices of public officers and are his bag. If A was unaware that what was
punishable thereby. (R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3) inside the sachet given to him was shabu,
is she nonetheless liable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act?
What are the salient features of the ANSWER:
Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 9165)? NO, A will not be criminally liable
because he is unaware of the content of the
ANSWER: sachet handed to him by B, and therefore,
1. The former classification of dangerous the criminal intent to possess the drug in
drugs into either prohibited or violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act is
regulated drugs has been absent. There would be no basis to impute
discontinued. The present criminal liability to her in the absence of
classification now involves both animus possidendi. (2002 Bar Examinations)
dangerous drugs and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals.
2. Planting evidence to incriminate an QUESTION
innocent party, and acting as May the crime of illegal sale of drugs
financier, protector/coddler are duly be consummated without the exchange of
defined and correspondingly the marked money?
3. Plea bargaining for those charged ANSWER:
under any provision of the Act, and YES. The consummation of the crime
regardless of the imposable penalty, of illegal sale of drugs may be sufficiently
shall not be allowed. Convicted drug established even in the absence of an
traffickers and pushers cannot avail exchange of money. The offer to sell and
of probation, regardless of the then the sale itself arises when the poseur-
penalty imposed buyer shows the money to the offender,
4. Some acts are punishable by life which prompts the latter to show the
imprisonment to death, which is a contents of the carton, and hand it over to
peculiar penalty. the poseur-buyer. Mere showing of the said
5. The RPC cannot apply even in a regulated drug does not negate the
suppletory character because the existence of an offer to sell or an actual
penalties provided under the RPC are sale. The crime of illegal sale of drugs is
not adopted therein. committed as soon as the sale transaction is
6. Specifically provides that in case the consummated. The payment could precede
offender is a minor, privilege or follow delivery of the drug sold. In a
"buy-bust" operation, what is important is activity transacts or attempts
the fact that the poseur-buyer received the to transact said monetary
shabu from the offender and that the same instrument or property;
was presented as evidence in Court. In - Any person knowing that any
short, proof of the transaction suffices. monetary instrument or
Settled is the rule that as long as the police property involves the
officer went through the operation as a proceeds of any unlawful
buyer and his offer was accepted by the activity, performs or fails to
offender and the dangerous drugs delivered perform any act as the result
to the former, the crime is considered of which he facilitates the
consummated by the delivery of the goods. offense of money laundering;
(PEOPLE vs. YANG, G.R. No. 148077, and
February 16, 2004) - Any person knowing that any
monetary instrument or
property is required to be
QUESTION disclosed with the Anti-Money
Who is a (1) Financier and (2) Laundering Council fails to do
Protector/Coddler under R.A. NO. 9165? so.
(b) Failure to keep records of all
ANSWER: transactions of covered institutions, which is
(1) A Financier is any person who pays required to be maintained and safely stored
for, raises or supplies money for or for five years from the dates of transaction.
underwrites any of the illegal activities (c) Breach of confidentiality - officers
proscribed under RA 9165. and employees of covered institutions are
(2) A Protector/Coddler is any person prohibited from communicating, directly or
who knowingly or willfully consents to indirectly, in any manner or by any means,
unlawful act provided for in this Act and to any person, the fact that a covered or
uses his/her influence, power or position in suspicious transaction report was made, the
shielding, harboring, screening or facilitating contents thereof, or any other information
the escape of any person he or she knows or in relation thereto.
has reasonable ground to believe or suspects (d) Malicious reporting – any person
has violated the provisions of this Act in who, with malice, or in bad faith, reports or
order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and files a completely unwarranted or false
conviction of the violator. information relative to money laundering
transaction against any person.

What are the offenses punishable QUESTION
under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. What are the acts considered as
No. 9160)? obstruction in the apprehension and
prosecution of offenders punished under
ANSWER: PD. NO. 1829?
The offenses punishable are as
follows: ANSWER:
(a) Money Laundering Offense – a The following acts are prohibited under

crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful PD 1829:

act, as defined in R.A. No. 9160, are 1. preventing witnesses from
transacted, thereby making them appear to testifying in any criminal
have originated from legitimate sources. It proceeding or from reporting the
is committed by the following: commission of any offense or the
- Any person knowing that any identity of offenders by means of
money instrument or property bribery, misrepresentation,
represents or relates to the deceit, intimidation, force or
proceeds of any unlawful threats;

publication to mislead the
2. altering, destroying, suppressing investigator or the court.
or concealing evidence in criminal
3. harboring or concealing or If in the commission of direct assault
facilitating the escape of any with multiple attempted homicide the
person he knows or has reasonable accused used an unlicensed firearm, can
ground to believe or suspect the accused by convicted separately of the
offenses of (a) illegal possession of
4. publicly using a fictitious name for firearms under PD 1866, as amended by
the purpose of concealing a crime. RA 8294, and (b) direct assault with
attempted homicide?
5. delaying the prosecution of
criminal cases by obstructing the ANSWER:
service of process or court orders NO. RA 8294 provides that possession
or disturbing proceedings; and use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
punishable as a separate offense only if no
6. making, presenting or using any other crime is committed. So if an
record, document, paper or object unlicensed firearm is used in the commission
with knowledge of its falsity and of any other crime, there can be no separate
with intent to affect the course or offense of simple illegal possession of
outcome of the investigation or firearms. Incidentally, the law also provides
official proceeding; that if homicide or murder is committed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
7. soliciting, accepting or agreeing to use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
accept any benefit in considered as an aggravating circumstance.
consideration of abstaining from, Since direct assault with multiple attempted
discounting or impeding the homicide was committed in this case, the
prosecution of a criminal offender; accused cannot be separately convicted of
illegal possession of firearms, and neither
8. threatening another with the can the use of the unlicensed firearm be
infliction of any wrong upon his appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
person, honor or property or that because the offense committed was direct
of any member of his family to assault with attempted homicide and not
prevent such person from plain homicide or murder as provided in RA
appearing in the investigation of 8294.
official proceedings in criminal Penal laws are construed liberally in
cases or imposing a condition favor of the accused. In this case, the plain
whether lawful or unlawful in meaning of RA 8294’s simple language is
order to prevent a person from most favorable to the accused. Verily, no
appearing; other interpretation is justified, for the
language of the new law demonstrates the
9. giving false or fabricated legislative intent to favor the accused.
information to mislead or prevent While it is true that this interpretation
the law enforcement agencies effectively exonerates the accused of illegal
from apprehending the offender or possession of an unlicensed firearm, an
from protecting the life and offense which normally carries a penalty
property of victim or fabricating heavier than that for direct assault. While
information from the data the penalty for the first is prision mayor, for
gathered in confidence by the second it is only prision correccional.
authorities for background Indeed, the accused may evade conviction
information and not for for illegal possession of firearms by using
such weapons in committing an even lighter
offense, like alarm and scandal or slight merely intended to set the deceased’s
physical injuries, both of which are clothes on fire. Art. 4 of the Revised Penal
punishable by arresto menor. This Coed provides, inter alia, that criminal
consequence, however, necessarily arises liability shall be incurred by any person
from the language of RA 8294, whose committing a felony although the wrongful
wisdom is not subject to judicial review. Any act done be different from that which he
perception that the result reached here intended. (PEOPLE vs. PUGAY, No. L-
appears unwise should be addressed to 74324. November 17, 1988)
Congress. Indeed, the courts have no
discretion to give statutes a new meaning
detached from the manifest intendment and FRUSTRATED FELONY
language of the legislature. Judicial power is Where the offender treacherously
constitutionally confined only to applying inflicted a wound upon the victim which was
the law and jurisprudence to the proven sufficient to have caused death, but the
facts. (PEOPLE vs. LADJAALAM, G.R. Nos. victim survives by reason of prompt medical
136149-51. September 19, 2000) attention, the offender is liable for
frustrated murder. (PEOPLE vs. MISION.
G.R. No. 63480. February 26,1991)
CONSPIRACY Self-defense is man’s inborn right. In
When accused-appellant Pugay a physical assault, retaliation becomes
poured gasoline on the victim’s body and unlawful after the attack has ceased,
thereafter his co-accused Samson set the because there would be no further harm to
victim on fire, there is nothing in the repel. But that is not the case when it is
records showing that there was previous aimed at a person’s good name. Once the
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one
intention between the two accused- thus defamed may avail himself of all the
appellants immediately before the necessary means to shake it off. He may hit
commission of the crime. There was no back with another libel which, if
animosity between the deceased and Pugay adequate, will be justified. (PEOPLE vs.
or Samson. Their meeting at the scene of HIONG. No. 10413-R. October 20, 1954)
the incident was accidental. It is also clear
that the accused and his group merely If there is no unlawful aggression,

wanted to make fun of the deceased. there is nothing to prevent or to repel and
Hence, the respective criminal responsibility the second requisite of self-defense would
of Pugay and Samson arising from different have no basis. Even if we allow appellant’s
acts directed against the deceased is contention that Tuquero was the initial
individual and not collective, each of them unlawful aggressor, we still cannot sustain
is liable only for the act committed by him. his plea of self-defense. After appellant
Pugay is liable for Homicide through successfully wrested the knife from
Reckless Imprudence, while Samson is liable Tuquero, the unlawful aggression had
for Homicide. ceased. After the unlawful aggression has
Pugay failed to exercise all the ceased, the one making the defense has no

diligence necessary to avoid every more right to kill or even wound the former
undesirable consequence arising from his aggressor. The presence of large number
act. Samson knew very well that the liquid of wounds on the part of the victim, their
poured on the body of the deceased was nature and location disprove self-defense
gasoline and a flammable substance for he and instead indicate a determined effort to
would not have committed the act settling kill the victim. (PEOPLE vs. SO, G.R.
the latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving No.104664. August 28, 1995)
him the benefit of the doubt, it can be
conceded that as of their fun-making he

Plainly, the accused-appellant could who was sleeping when the victims chiselled
no longer retreat from the continuing assault his house and fenced off his estate and who
by the victim who, as inexorably shown by asked them to stop doing so is not guilty of
his relentless advance towards the accused- sufficient provocation when he shot the
appellant, was poised to kill the latter. The victims who ignored his plea. (PEOPLE vs.
danger to the accused-appellant’s life was NARVAEZ. Nos. L-33466-67. April
clearly imminent. It would not then be 20,1983.)
proper nor reasonable to claim that he
should have fled or selected a less deadly Unlawful aggression presupposes an
weapon, because in the emergency in which, actual, sudden, unexpected attack or
without any reason whatever, he was imminent danger thereof, not merely a
placed, there was nothing more natural than threatening or intimidating attitude and the
to use the weapon he had to defend himself. accused must present proof of positively
In the natural order of the things, following strong act of aggression. Even if we give
the instinct of self-preservation, he was credence to accused-appellant’s version of
compelled to resort to a proper defense. It the events, specifically that the deceased
is settled that reasonable necessity of the hurled invectives at him and moved as if to
means employed does not imply material draw something from his waist, the Court
commensurability between the means of are unable to establish a finding of unlawful
attack and defense. What the law requires aggression on the victim’s part. Unlawful
is rational equivalence, in the aggression presupposes an actual, sudden,
consideration of which will enter the unexpected attack or imminent danger
principal factors the emergency, the thereof, not merely a threatening or
imminent danger to which the person intimidating attitude and the accused must
attacked is exposed, and the instinct more present proof of positively strong act of real
than the reason, that moves or impels the aggression. (PEOPLE vs. ARIZALA, G.R. No.
defense, and the proportionateness 130708. October 22, 1999)
thereof does not depend upon the harm
done, but rests upon the imminent danger
No. 115233. February 22,1996). OFFICER
The subordinate who, in following an
The actuation of deceased Fleischer order of the superior, failed to observe all
in angrily ordering the continuance of the auditing procedures of disbursement, cannot
fencing would have resulted in the further escape responsibility for such omission; but
chiseling of the walls of appellant’s house as where he acted in good faith, his liability
well as the closure of the access to and should only be administrative or civil in
from his house and his rice mill—which were nature, not criminal. (TABUENA vs.
not only imminent but were actually in SANDIGANBAYAN. G.R. Nos. 103501-03.
progress. There is no question, therefore, February 17,1997)
that there was aggression on the part of the
victims: Fleischer was ordering, and Rubia
was actually participating in the fencing. INSANITY AS EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
This was indeed an aggression, not on the Accuse-appellant must thus prove
person of appellant, but on his property that he was completely deprived of reason
rights. when he killed his father in order to be
The reasonableness of the resistance exempt for parricide. There is nothing either
is also a requirement of the justifying in the report of Dr. Gerona or his testimony
circumstance of self-defense or defense of which indubitably show that accused-
one’s rights under paragraph 1 of Article 11, appellant was completely without reason
Revised Penal Code. When the appellant when he killed his father because the latter
fired his shotgun from his window, killing his wanted him to leave the house. The defense
two victims, his resistance was of insanity is in the nature of confession and
disproportionate to the attack. Appellant avoidance and, like the justifying
circumstance of self-defense, the burden is above proved, manifests intention to
on the defense to prove beyond reasonable extinguish life. Moreover, it was likewise
doubt that the accused was insane declared that the bullet injured a vital organ
immediately before the commission of the of the victim. (PEOPLE vs. NEPOMUCENO,
crime or at the very moment of its JR.. G.R. No.127818. November 11, 1998)
execution. Although schizophrenia is not
exempting if it does not completely deprive
the offender of the consciousness of his VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE AS
acts, it may nevertheless be considered MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
mitigating under Art 13 (9) if it diminishes The presence of the 5th mitigating
the exercise of his will power. (PEOPLE vs. circumstance, that is, immediate vindication
BANEZ, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, of a grave offense to said accused, may be
1999) taken into consideration in favor of the two
accused. There was no interruption from the
time the offense was committed to the
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY vindication thereof. The herein accused
With respect to accused-appellant belong to a family of old customs to whom
Rene Estepano, the records show that he the elopement of a daughter with a man
was only thirteen (13) years of age at the constitutes a grave offense to their honor
time of the commission of the offense. and causes disturbance of the peace and
Under Art.12, par. (3), of the RPC, a person tranquility of the home and at the same
over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen time spreads uneasiness and anxiety in the
(15) years is exempt from criminal liability minds of the members thereof. ( PEOPLE
unless it is shown that he acted with vs. DIOKNO, No. 45100 . October 26,
discernment. The minor referred to here is 1936)
presumed to have acted without
discernment. Thus, it is incumbent upon
the prosecution to prove that such minor REITERACION
acted otherwise. Reiteracion requires that if there is
Even if he was indeed a co- only one prior offense, that offense must
conspirator, he would still be exempt from be punishable by an equal or greater
criminal liability as the prosecution failed to penalty that the one for which the accused
rebut the presumption of non-discernment has been convicted. There is no reiteracion
on his part by virtue of his age. (PEOPLE vs. because that circumstance requires that the
ESTEPANO. G.R. No. 126283. May previous offenses should not be embraced in

23,1999) the same title of the Code. While grave

threats fall in a title, different from
homicide, still reiteracion cannot be
ACCIDENT AS AN EXEMPTING appreciated because such aggravating
CIRCUMSTANCE circumstance requires that if there is only
At all events, accidents to be one prior offense, that offense must be
exempting, presupposes that the act done is punishable by an equal or greater penalty
lawful. Here, however, the act of the that the one for which the accused has been
accused-appellant of drawing a weapon in convicted. Likewise, the prosecution has to
the course of a quarrel, the same not being prove that the offender has been punished

in self-defense, is unlawful—it at least for the previous offense. There is no

constitutes light threats (Art. 285,par. 1 of evidence presented by the prosecution to
RPC). There is thus no room for the that effect. (PEOPLE vs. REAL, G.R. No.
invocation of accident as ground for 93436. March 24, 1995)
The fact that the victim is not shot in
the head, or in any vital part of her body EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
does not negate intent to kill. The extent of In the absence of other notorious acts
the physical injury inflicted on the victim, as evincing his determination to murder the

victim, known premeditation in the instant COMPLEX CRIME
case cannot be deduced from the mere fact Where the appellant inflicted a stab
that six (6) hours before he stabbed the wound on each of the two (2) victims who
victim to death, the accused-appellant took were separated from each other by a
the hunting knife of the victim. There is distance of three (3) meters, the acts of the
nothing in the records to show that there appellant may not be characterized as a
was an enmity between the two and it is not delito compuesto. There were, in other
for the Court to conjecture that there was. words two (2) distinct acts, directed at two
Indeed, it is foolhardy for the Court to draw (2) different victims successively, separated
from this single act a cold-blooded from each other by a brief but discernible
intention to take the life of another. The interval of time and space. A delito
killing was simply committed as a-spur-of- compuesto, in contrast, arises from a single
the-moment, induced by that degree of physical act resulting in simultaneous injury
intoxication which then triggered of the to two (2) or more victims. (PEOPLE vs.
bellicosity in the accused-appellant who, MISION. G.R. No. 63480. February
incidentally, is known in the community as 26,1991)
an ex-convict and a killer. (PEOPLE vs.
CALIJAN, G.R. No. 94592. September 28,

As a rule, a sudden attack by the
assailant, whether frontally or from behind,
is treachery if such mode of attack was
coolly and deliberately adopted by him with
the purpose of depriving the victim of a
chance to either fight or retreat. The rule
does not apply, however, where the attack
was not preconceived and deliberately
adopted but was just triggered by the
sudden infuriation on the part of the
accused because of the provocative act of
the victim. This is more so, where the
assault upon the victim was preceded by a
heated exchange of words between him and
the accused. In the case at bench, the
assault came in the course of an altercation
and after appellant had sharpened his bolo
in full view of the victim. Appellant’s act of AMNESTY
sharpening his bolo can be interpreted as an A person released by amnesty stands
attempt to frighten the victim so the latter before the law as though he had
would leave him alone. It was simply committed no offense. Amnesty looks
foolhardy for the victim to continue walking backward and abolishes and puts into
to and fro near appellant in a taunting oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks
manner while the latter was sharpening his and obliterates the offense with which he
bolo. The suddenness of the attack does not, is charged. Amnesty is a public act of
by itself, suffice to support a finding of which the court should take judicial
alevosia where the decision to attack was notice. Thus, the right tot he benefits of
made peremptorily and the victim’s helpless amnesty, once established by the evidence
position was incidental. (PEOPLE vs. REAL, presented either by the complainant or
G.R. No. 93436. March 24, 1995) prosecution or by the offense, can not be
waived, because it is of public interest that
a person who is regarded by the Amnesty
Proclamation, which has force of the law,
not only as innocent, for he stands in the ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION
eyes of the law as if he had never Acts of endorsing of checks by way of
committed any punishable offense because identification of the signatures of the payees
of the amnesty, but as a patriot or hero, and entitled to said checks and their proceeds
not to be punished as a criminal. (PEOPLE constitute the crime of estafa through
vs. VERA, G.R. No. 26539. February 28, falsification of mercantile document by
1990) reckless imprudence because such
endorsement constituted a written
representation that the payees participated
PARDON in the indorsement and cashing of the
Pardon does not ipso facto restore a checks, when in truth and in fact the true
convicted felon to public office necessarily payees had no direct intervention in the
relinquished or forfeited by reason of the proceedings.
conviction although such pardon In the crime of falsification by
undoubtedly restores his eligibility for imprudence of public or mercantile
appointment to that office. The pardon documents the element of intent to cause
granted to petitioner resulted in removing damage is not required because what the
her disqualification from holding public law seeks to repress is the prejudice to
employment, but to regain her former post, the public confidence in these documents.
she must reapply and undergo the usual (SAMSON vs. CA, et al. Nos. L-10364 and
procedure required for a new appointment. L-10376. March 31.1958)
The Court cannot oblige her Civil liability
arising from crime. It subsists
notwithstanding service of sentence, or for RAPE
any reason the sentence is not served by There is no such crime as frustrated
pardon, amnesty or commutation of rape. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from
sentence. Petitioner’s civil liability may only the moment the offender has carnal
be extinguished by the same causes knowledge of his victim, he actually attains
recognized in the Civil Code, namely: his purpose and from that moment also all
payment, loss the thing due, remission of the essential elements of the offense have
the debt, merger of the rights of creditor been accomplished. Nothing more is left to
and debtor, compensation and novation. be done by the offender, because he has
(MONSANTO vs. FACTORAN, G.R. No. performed the last act necessary to produce
78239. February 9, 1989) the crime. Thus, the felony is

consummated. The uniform rule is that for

the consummation of rape, perfect
penetration is not essential. Any
MALVERSATION penetration of the female organ by the male
It is settled that good faith is a valid organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or the
defense in the prosecution of malversation lips of the female organ, without rupture of
for it would negate criminal intent on the the hymen or laceration of the vagina is
part of the accused. To constitute a crime, sufficient to warrant conviction. (PEOPLE
the act must, except in certain crimes made vs. QUIÑANOLA, G.R. No. 126148, May 5,
such by statute, be accompanied by criminal 1999)

intent, or by such negligence or indifference

to duty or to consequences as, in law, is Absence of injuries doe not negate
equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is the commission of rape. It is true that,
actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea—a although complainant testified that
crime is not committed if the mind of the appellant boxed her on the stomach, the
person performing the act complained of is medical report did not indicate any
innocent. (TABUENA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN. abrasion, hematoma or bruise on that part
G.R. Nos. 103501-03. February 17,1997) of her anatomy. This is of no consequence.
Medical authorities agree that when force is

applied on the stomach, no marks may be he is not clearly made so by the statute. In
detected. Injuries may have been caused in view of the foregoing, the additional rape
the internal organs, but external signs are committed by herein accused-appellant
not always visible. The absence of injuries, should not be considered as aggravating. The
however, does not negate the commission of proper penalty of reclusion perpetua
rape. (PEOPLE vs. JOYA, G.R. No. 79090. imposed by the trial court is proper.
October 1, 1993) (PEOPLE vs. REGALA, G.R. No. 130508.
April 5, 2000)
It should be underscored that the
presence or absence of spermatozoa in the In robbery with homicide cases, the
vagina is not determinative of the prosecution need only to prove these
commission of rape because a sperm test is elements: (a) the taking of personal
not a sine qua non for the successful property with violence or intimidation
prosecution of a rape case. Thus, the lack of against persons; (b) that the property taken
spermatozoa in the victim’s body does not belongs toanother; (c) the taking be done
negate the crime of rape. The important with animus lucrandi; and (d) on the
element in rape is penetration of the occasion of the robbery or by reason
pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid. thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense)
(PEOPLE vs. BONDOY, G.R. No. 79089. was committed. These elements were
May 18, 1993) present when accused-appellants, acting in
unison, demanded money from her mother,
forcibly took tha same against her will and
ROBBERY then hacked here to death. (PEOPLE vs.
When robbery is committed by three CABILES, G.R. No.113785. September
(3) persons in conspiracy and not by a band, 14, 1995)
that is more than three (3) armed
malefactors taking part in the commission of It has been repeatedly held that when
the crime, only the offender committing direct and intimate connection exists
rape shall be liable for the special complex between the robbery and the killing,
crime of robbery with rape. (PEOPLE vs. regardless of which the two precedes the
MORENO, G.R. No. 92049, March 22, other, or whether they are committed at the
1993) same time, the crime committed is the
special complex crime of robbery with
It should be noted that there is no law homicide. It is a settled doctrine that when
providing that the additional rape/s or death supervenes by reason or on occasion
homicide/s should be considered as of the robbery, it is immaterial that the
aggravating circumstances. The enumeration occurrence of death was by mere accident.
of aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of What is important and decisive is that death
the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as results by reason or on occasion of the
opposed to the enumeration in Art. 13 of the robbery. The death of robbery victim by
same code regarding mitigating accident can, however, be considered as a
circumstances where there is a specific mitigating circumstance. If the
paragraph (par 10) providing for analogous circumstances would indicate no intention to
circumstances. It is true that the additional kill, as in the instant case where evidently,
rapes (or killings in the case of multiple the intention is to prevent the deceased
homicide on the occasion of robbery) would from making an outcry, and so a “pandesal”
result in an analogous situation where from was stuffed into her mouth, the mitigating
the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, circumstance of not having intended to
robbery with one rape would be on the same commit so grave may be appreciated. The
level as robbery with multiple rapes. stuffing of the “pandesal” in the mouth
However, the remedy lies with the would not have produced asphyxiation had it
legislature. A penal law is liberally not slid into the neckline, “caused by the
construed in favor of the offender and no victim’s own movements.” (PEOPLE vs.
person should be brought within its terms if OPERO, No. L- 48796. June 11, 1981)
infidelity. But the killing should have been
actually motivated by the same blind
KIDNAPPING WITH SERIOUS ILLEGAL impulse, and must not have been influenced
DETENTION by external factors. The killing must be the
The essence of kidnapping or direct by-product of the accused’s rage.
serious illegal detention is the actual (PEOPLE vs. ABARCA. L-74433. September
confinement or restraint of the victim or 14,1987).
the deprivation of his liberty. There is no
kidnapping with murder , but only murder CARNAPPING
where a 3-year old child was gagged, hidden Considering the phraseology of
in a box where it did and ransom asked. The amended Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539, the
demand for ransom did not convert the carnapping and the killing (or the rape) may
offense in to kidnapping with murder. The be considered a single or indivisible or a
defendant was well aware that the child special complex crime which, however, is
would be suffocated to death in a few not covered by Article 48 of the Revised
moments after she left. The demand for Penal Code. As such, the killing (or the
ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme rape) merely qualifies the crime of
of the defendant to murder the child, to carnapping whick for lack of specific
conceal his body and then demand money nomenclature may be known as qualified
before the discovery of the cadaver. carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated
(PEOPLE vs. LORA, G.R. No.49430. March form.
30, 1982) Since Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 uses
the words “IS KILLED,” no distinction must
be made between homicide and murder.
DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL Whether it is one or the other which is
CIRCUMSTANCES committed “in the course of carnapping or
There is no question that the accused on the occasion thereof” makes no
surprised his wife and her paramour, the difference insofar as the penalty is
victim in this case, in the act of illicit concerned. It follows then that the killing of
copulation, as a result of which, he went out the driver, whether it be homicide or
to kill the deceased in a fit of a passionate murder—cannot be treated as a separate
outburst. Art. 247 prescribes the following offense, but should only be considered to
elements: (1) that a legally married person qualify the crime of carnapping.
surprises his spouse in the act of committing On the otherhand, if attempted or
sexual intercourse with another person; and frustrated murder or homicide is committed

(2) that he kills any of them or both of them “in the course of the commission of the
in the act or immediately thereafter. These carnapping or on the occasion thereof,”
elements are present in the case. then it must be deemed to fall under the
Though about one hour, had passed clause (of Section 14) “when the carnapping
between the time the accused-appellant is committed by means of violence against
discovered his wife having sexual intercourse or intimidation of any person.” (PEOPLE vs.
with the victim and the time the latter was MEJIA. G.R. Nos.118940-41 and G.R.
actually shot, the shooting must be No.119407. July 7, 1997)
understood to be the continuation of the
pursuit of the victim by the accused-

appellant. The RPC, in requiring that the DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT

accused “shall kill any of them or both of To sustain a conviction for selling
them… immediately” after surprising his prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly
spouse in the act of sexual intercourse, does and unmistakably established. To sell means
not say that he should commit the killing to give, whether for money or any other
instantly thereafter. It only requires that the material consideration. It must, therefore,
death caused be the proximate result of the be established beyond reasonable doubt that
outrage overwhelming the accused after appellant actually sold and delivered two
chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of tea bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt.

Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in
exchange for twenty-peso bills. (PEOPLE
vs. SIMON. G.R. No.93028. July 29,1994.)